Re: Making a partial C compiler

"John Eskie" <cyberheg@l115.langkaer.dk>
8 Jun 2003 21:58:49 -0400

          From comp.compilers

Related articles
[5 earlier articles]
Re: Making a partial C compiler cyberheg@l115.langkaer.dk (John Eskie) (2003-05-29)
Re: Making a partial C compiler vbdis@aol.com (2003-06-03)
Re: Making a partial C compiler lars@bearnip.com (2003-06-03)
Re: Making a partial C compiler boldyrev@cgitftp.uiggm.nsc.ru (Ivan Boldyrev) (2003-06-03)
Re: Making a partial C compiler jyrixx@astro.temple.edu (2003-06-03)
Re: Making a partial C compiler torbenm@diku.dk (2003-06-05)
Re: Making a partial C compiler cyberheg@l115.langkaer.dk (John Eskie) (2003-06-08)
Re: Making a partial C compiler cyberheg@l115.langkaer.dk (John Eskie) (2003-06-08)
Re: Making a partial C compiler vbdis@aol.com (2003-06-20)
| List of all articles for this month |

From: "John Eskie" <cyberheg@l115.langkaer.dk>
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: 8 Jun 2003 21:58:49 -0400
Organization: TDC Internet
References: 03-05-139 03-05-202 03-06-012
Keywords: tools, design
Posted-Date: 08 Jun 2003 21:58:49 EDT

> This 'dead code' has a good chance of being thrown out by the optimizer.


Yes thats correct. If you make some conditional code around it, the
compiler has a harder time to see if the code is in use or not (based
on a dummy condition which always goes in one direction). Ofcourse it
would require a bit experimentation and knowledge of how the compiler
optimizes.


>> 3. Rearranging of code so if you got 3 blocks of statements A, B, C you
can
> > do:
> > 4. Dynamic "linking" by making exact function calls to be resolved at
> > runtime by using function pointers.
>
> I can imagine that both measures would be quite detrimental to the
> program's performance as it requires excessive branching.


Yes it would decrease performance but I find it acceptable to a
certain level. What I want is to produce code bloat as much as
allowed.


-- John


Post a followup to this message

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