Re: HLL syntax & structure suited to rapid compilation?

Joachim Durchholz wrote:
> Marco van de Voort wrote:
>> Tzvetan Mikov wrote:
>>>I got pretty angry when I saw things like:
>>> mov eax, ebx
>>> mov ebx, eax
>>>in the "optimized" code.
>>
>> But how did the overal performance differ? Everybody can single out some
>> thing that was missed by the peephole optimiser (and maybe only because the
>> construct just before or after it was "special"), but the overall code
>> quality matters, and can (IMHO) be only done by benchmarking/profiling real
>> applications.
>
> I haven't done any benchmarks, but code like the above was scattered
> all over the place. About 20% of instructions were such store/reload
> pairs, at least for the code that I looked at. I found this appalling.


I checked Delphi's code, and it doesn't seem that bad. That TP/BP
isn't optimizing is wellknown, but Delphi should be.


> Again, this is all written from a years-old perspective. I have used
> Borland Pascal, but I never encountered any serious performance
> problems with Borland products afterwards (I don't know whether that's
> because the code generators improved or whether processors got
> faster).


I think you meant TP/BP, and I assumed Delphi (because you wrote
32-bit instructions above).


Case closed :-)

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