|Comparing Compilers firstname.lastname@example.org (G P) (2004-11-06)|
|Re: Comparing Compilers email@example.com (TOUATI Sid) (2004-11-14)|
|Re: Comparing Compilers firstname.lastname@example.org (G P) (2004-11-14)|
|Re: Comparing Compilers email@example.com (G P) (2004-11-17)|
|Re: Comparing Compilers firstname.lastname@example.org (A Pietu Pohjalainen) (2004-11-17)|
|Re: Comparing Compilers email@example.com (Dick Weaver) (2004-11-17)|
|Re: Comparing Compilers firstname.lastname@example.org (TOUATI Sid) (2004-11-28)|
|Re: Comparing Compilers email@example.com (2004-12-13)|
|From:||TOUATI Sid <firstname.lastname@example.org>|
|Date:||28 Nov 2004 23:23:17 -0500|
|Organization:||Universite de Versailles Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines|
|References:||04-11-015 04-11-033 04-11-050|
|Posted-Date:||28 Nov 2004 23:23:17 EST|
>>The same remark for code size : who cares if you generate a code of 4.9
>>Ko instead of 4 ko. However, I think that many people would care if you
>>generate 4.9 Go instead of 4 Go.
> People compiling Java to mobile phones (J2ME) actually do care on
> savings of one kilobyte in the size of the compiled code. This is
> because the phone manufacturers, especially on the low-end models
> limit the maximum size of the deployable program to e.g. 30kB.
They would care only if saving 0.9 kb of code size allows them to use
smaller memories. Since the sizes of the memories in the market are
mostly power of 2, building an application of 3 or 3.9 kb requires to
use a memory of 4kb in both cases.
In embedded systems, the problem is not to optimize an application given
an architecture, but to optimize an architecture given an application.
In other words, compiling for smallest codes wouldn't necessarily comes
up with smallest architectures.
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.