Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.
| Related articles |
|---|
| [4 earlier articles] |
| Re: Reordering of functions gah@ugcs.caltech.edu (glen herrmannsfeldt) (2008-02-20) |
| Re: Reordering of functions plfriko@yahoo.de (Tim Frink) (2008-02-21) |
| Re: Reordering of functions plfriko@yahoo.de (Tim Frink) (2008-02-21) |
| Re: Reordering of functions plfriko@yahoo.de (Tim Frink) (2008-02-21) |
| Re: Reordering of functions gah@ugcs.caltech.edu (glen herrmannsfeldt) (2008-02-24) |
| Re: Reordering of functions cfc@shell01.TheWorld.com (Chris F Clark) (2008-02-24) |
| Re: Reordering of functions Jan.Vorbrueggen@thomson.net (=?ISO-8859-15?Q?Jan_Vorbr=FCggen?=) (2008-02-25) |
| Re: Reordering of functions gneuner2@comcast.net (George Neuner) (2008-02-25) |
| From: | =?ISO-8859-15?Q?Jan_Vorbr=FCggen?= <Jan.Vorbrueggen@thomson.net> |
| Newsgroups: | comp.compilers |
| Date: | Mon, 25 Feb 2008 11:39:05 +0100 |
| Organization: | Guest of France Telecom's news reading service |
| References: | 08-02-051 08-02-052 08-02-062 |
| Keywords: | optimize, architecture |
| Posted-Date: | 25 Feb 2008 09:57:40 EST |
Didn't see the original reply, but...:
>> In fact, most compiler/frameworks support function-inlining which
>> may lead to even bigger functions, which again may lead to a cache
>> being to small to hold more than just one function, in such cases
>> such a reordering does not make much sense.
But remember that most current processors have more than one level of
cache. I doubt there are many, if any, functions in existence that would
exceed the capacity of, say, the Montecito L3 cache (16 MB or so).
Jan
Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.