TDF (ANDF) information

nickh@CS.CMU.EDU (Nick Haines)
Tue, 18 Aug 1992 22:47:11 GMT

          From comp.compilers

Related articles
TDF (ANDF) information nickh@CS.CMU.EDU (1992-08-18)
Information about ANDF / TDF (1992-09-28)
| List of all articles for this month |

Newsgroups: comp.compilers
From: nickh@CS.CMU.EDU (Nick Haines)
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 22:47:11 GMT
Originator: nickh@VOILA.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU
Keywords: UNCOL

After the last time TDF (the OSF's chosen ANDF) was discussed here, I dug
out an old email contact address and sent off for the newer information
pack. This comes as 3 (soon to be 4) documents:

- TDF Specification (56pp)
- TDF Facts and Figures (9pp, gives comparative benchmarks)
- TDF and portability (14pp)
- Introductory Guide to TDF (available soon)

You too can be the proud owner of this stuff by contacting:

Dr Nic E Peeling
Defence Research Agency
St Andrews Road
Great Malvern
WR14 3PS

Tel: +44 684 895314
Fax: +44 684 894303

TDF is an Architecture Neutral Distribution Format (ANDF). It's similar to
a machine-independent intermediate representation in a compiler. The idea
is that software vendors can sell a single shrink-wrapped ANDF version
(made by a `producer', similar to a compiler front-end) of their stuff and
anyone with an ANDF `installer' (back end) on their machine can buy it and
run it. It's a bit like UNCOL in the breadth of its aims but seems to
actually work....

Only a subset of TDF was chosen by the OSF for its ANDF. This subset is
sufficient for ANSI C, but TDF as a whole was designed to support (at
least) FORTRAN, COBOL, C++, Ada, ML, and LISP also.

DRAE have the following TDF items:

- ANSI C producer
- MIPS, VAX, i386, SPARC, and 68k installers
- ANDF to ANDF optimizer
- ANDF pretty-printer.
- ANDF linker

They are working on these items:

- C++ producer
- Transputer installer
- extensions to TDF to support parallelism

and you can be sure that producers for other languages are in the works
(through collaboration with other bodies, to make an informed guess).

>From "TDF Facts and Figures" (which gives runtime/compile-time/ filesize
benchmarks comparing TDF compilers with other compilers) I've distilled
these runtime benchmarks. On these machines:

Platform OS Native Compiler

VAXStation 3100 Ultrix 4.2 GCC 1.37.1
DECStation 5100 Ultrix 4.1 CC -O2 and CC -O3
Dell 486 SCO UNIX GCC 1.37.1 -O
SPARCStation 2 SunOS 4.1.1 CC -O3
HP 9000/425T HP-UX 7.05 CC -O

they got these runtime results for these parts of SPEC (values greater
than 1 show TDF better than native compiler):

eqntott espresso gcc xlisp

VAX 1.02 0.98 0.90 1.03
MIPS 0.99 0.95 1.01 0.95
MIPS* 0.91 0.91 0.98
486 1.01 1.02 0.90 1.08
SPARC 1.15 1.00 0.81 0.97
68k 1.29 0.83 0.90 0.90

(* the -O3 level on CC does multi-file optimizations. The corresponding
level of optimization (tcc -M) was used for the TDF compiler in this
instance but not in any of the other tests. The gcc benchmark does not run
correctly with CC -O3, so this was omitted).

Nick Haines

Post a followup to this message

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