Re: Good practical language and OS agnostic text?

"BartC" <bc@freeuk.com>
Sat, 21 Apr 2012 12:01:55 +0100

          From comp.compilers

Related articles
[30 earlier articles]
Re: Good practical language and OS agnostic text? jthorn@astro.indiana.edu (Jonathan Thornburg) (2012-04-20)
Re: Good practical language and OS agnostic text? compilers@is-not-my.name (2012-04-21)
Re: Good practical language and OS agnostic text? askmeforit@myisp.com (Joe Schmo) (2012-04-21)
Re: Good practical language and OS agnostic text? norjaidi.tuah@ubd.edu.bn (Nor Jaidi Tuah) (2012-04-21)
Re: Good practical language and OS agnostic text? ulimakesacompiler@googlemail.com (Uli Kusterer) (2012-04-21)
Re: Good practical language and OS agnostic text? ulimakesacompiler@googlemail.com (Uli Kusterer) (2012-04-21)
Re: Good practical language and OS agnostic text? bc@freeuk.com (BartC) (2012-04-21)
Re: Good practical language and OS agnostic text? jthorn@astro.indiana.edu (Jonathan Thornburg) (2012-04-21)
Re: Good practical language and OS agnostic text? cr88192@hotmail.com (BGB) (2012-04-21)
Re: code quality, was Good practical language and OS agnostic text? DrDiettrich1@aol.com (Hans-Peter Diettrich) (2012-04-22)
Re: Good practical language and OS agnostic text? compilers@is-not-my.name (2012-04-22)
Re: Good practical language and OS agnostic text? compilers@is-not-my.name (2012-04-22)
Re: Good practical language and OS agnostic text? tk@ic.unicamp.br (Tomasz Kowaltowski) (2012-04-22)
[8 later articles]
| List of all articles for this month |

From: "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com>
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2012 12:01:55 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
References: 12-04-019 12-04-023 12-04-033
Keywords: design, performance
Posted-Date: 21 Apr 2012 17:17:49 EDT

"Hans-Peter Diettrich" <DrDiettrich1@aol.com> wrote in message
> Life is too short for writing an full-blown heavily-optimizing
> production compiler from scratch, including its whole RTL.


Especially when there might only be difference of 2 or 3 times between
performance of the best and worst code.


My own compiler for x86-32 generates pretty awful code, and on a small
handful of mostly numeric benchmarks, it averages out about 2.5 x as
slow as gcc on it's highest optimisation setting. But, gcc often
recognises these benchmarks as doing nothing useful, so removes whole
sections of code!


The true factor is probably between 1 and 2, and for critical code, I just
use inline assembly code, so it's not real problem. I'm rewriting that
compiler at the moment, and will probably achieve somewhat better
performance, but don't worry about it too much.


--
Bartc



Post a followup to this message

Return to the comp.compilers page.
Search the comp.compilers archives again.