Re: kickass optimizing compilers?

Andrew Richards <andrew@codeplay.com>
12 Jan 2004 13:32:44 -0500

          From comp.compilers

Related articles
kickass optimizing compilers? vanevery@indiegamedesign.com (Brandon J. Van Every) (2004-01-09)
Re: kickass optimizing compilers? gah@ugcs.caltech.edu (glen herrmannsfeldt) (2004-01-12)
Re: kickass optimizing compilers? toon@moene.indiv.nluug.nl (Toon Moene) (2004-01-12)
Re: kickass optimizing compilers? walter@bytecraft.com (Walter Banks) (2004-01-12)
Re: kickass optimizing compilers? jvorbrueggen@mediasec.de (Jan C.=?iso-8859-1?Q?Vorbr=FCggen?=) (2004-01-12)
Re: kickass optimizing compilers? andrew@codeplay.com (Andrew Richards) (2004-01-12)
Re: kickass optimizing compilers? vanevery@indiegamedesign.com (Brandon J. Van Every) (2004-01-16)
Re: kickass optimizing compilers? colohan+@cs.cmu.edu (Christopher Brian Colohan) (2004-01-16)
Re: kickass optimizing compilers? Jeffrey.Kenton@comcast.net (Jeff Kenton) (2004-01-16)
Re: kickass optimizing compilers? Robert@Knighten.org (Robert Knighten) (2004-01-17)
Re: kickass optimizing compilers? walter@bytecraft.com (Walter Banks) (2004-01-18)
Re: kickass optimizing compilers? db@digital.com (dablick) (2004-02-01)
[4 later articles]
| List of all articles for this month |

From: Andrew Richards <andrew@codeplay.com>
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: 12 Jan 2004 13:32:44 -0500
Organization: blueyonder (post doesn't reflect views of blueyonder)
References: 04-01-044
Keywords: optimize
Posted-Date: 12 Jan 2004 13:32:44 EST

Brandon J. Van Every wrote:
> Can anyone point me at compilers that are considered "state of the
> art" for optimized ASM generation? I don't care what language, or CPU
> platform, or whether it's freely or commercially available, or even if
> it only exists in a lab.


Well, we certainly consider our VectorC to be "state of the art" in
optimized ASM generation. Especially for games, graphics and audio
software. Our compiler for vector units is compared directly with
human-coded assembly language.


http://www.codeplay.com


An assembly language programmer will always have options open that
compilers do not have. For example, changing the calling-conventions
for a function or layout of data in memory. Compilers are restricted
in that they have to optimize what was written and are limited in what
they know and can change.


Another example: An assembly language programmer might keep a global
variable in a register over several function calls, but a compiler
would have to know exactly where each of those functions are all being
called from to be able to make such an optimization safely. In a large
C/C++ project, there is no requirement on programmers to provide this
information to the compiler.


We take the option of giving C/C++ programmers control over the
generated assembly, but it does require a little knowledge of the
compiler and target architecture from the C/C++ programmer.


While this post is clearly an advertisement ;-), I like to think that
it is an answer to the question.


--
Andrew Richards


Codeplay Software Limited - http://www.codeplay.com
Tel: +44 (0)131 466 0503


Post a followup to this message

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