|yup! email@example.com.Virginia.EDU (1991-08-18)|
|Where would you like to spend that resource? (WAS: yup!) firstname.lastname@example.org (1991-08-19)|
|Re: Where would you like to spend that resource? (WAS: yup!) email@example.com.Virginia.EDU (1991-08-21)|
|Re: Where would you like to spend that resource? (WAS: yup!) firstname.lastname@example.org (1991-08-22)|
|Re: Where would you like to spend that resource? (WAS: yup!) email@example.com (1991-08-22)|
|Re: Where would you like to spend that resource? (WAS: yup!) firstname.lastname@example.org (1991-08-31)|
|From:||email@example.com (David Keppel)|
|Organization:||Computer Science & Engineering, U. of Washington, Seattle|
|References:||91-08-082 91-08-092 91-08-107|
|Date:||Thu, 22 Aug 91 18:05:24 GMT|
Hm, perhaps I should give this speech from the protected area *underneath*
my soap box. Excuse me while I <clank> don <clank> my <bonk!> armor.
>[The original discussion *was* about optimization;
> I got the impression you were worried about time spent optimizing
> during the software development cycle;
> doing array bounds checking is not redundant work, nobody said they
> this *is* `comp.compilers'.]
Yes, the original discussion was about optimization. When somebody said the
state of the practice for optimizers was bad, I stepped in and made the
opinionated statement that the quest for speed was (IMHO) overstated.
I am not worried about cycles spent running the optimizer during development;
I didn't mean to give that impression. And yes, a good optmizer can remove
redundant array bounds checks (see e.g., the PL.801 work which claimed only a
few percent overhead for optimized full array bounds checks).
I'm saying that while a lot of time is spent on optimizers (and optimizers are
a good thing) it is my contention that the performance of many programs is
less important than their correctness. I would rather have more work
improving that state of the practice than improving the optimizer state of the
Bill Wulf says that correctness-vs-performance is a favorite academic debate,
but in commercial systems they occur together or not at all; neither
performance nor correctness are ``add-on''. Optimizing compilers, he says,
are a tool that let designers and builders focus on larger issues of algorithm
and data structure. Right on.
I think perhaps my original posting was misplaced (or at least the
`Followup-To:' line). I don't want to roll back compiler technology, nor am I
arguing that optimizers are developing along the wrong lines. I am making
project goal, programming style and methodology, and language design
arguments. So rather than explain myself further I think I'll fall off.
Whew, I think this soapbox is flame-retardent!
;-D oN ( The goal of a new machine ) Pardo
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.