|Re: Architecture description languages for compilers? firstname.lastname@example.org (1993-01-28)|
|Thompson's 2c vs. gcc email@example.com (Michael John Haertel) (1993-01-29)|
|Re: Thompson's 2c vs. gcc firstname.lastname@example.org (1993-02-02)|
|Re: Thompson's 2c vs. gcc email@example.com (Michael John Haertel) (1993-02-04)|
|Re: Thompson's 2c vs. gcc firstname.lastname@example.org (1993-02-04)|
|Re: Thompson's 2c vs. gcc email@example.com (1993-02-05)|
|Re: Thompson's 2c vs. gcc firstname.lastname@example.org (1993-02-05)|
|From:||email@example.com (Joe Buck)|
|Organization:||U. C. Berkeley|
|Date:||Thu, 4 Feb 1993 18:57:31 GMT|
Michael John Haertel <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
>I hadn't realized, or had forgotten, that Thompson had conducted his
>comparisons on the MIPS. The MIPS port of gcc version 1.x was certainly
>not well tuned.
It wasn't just that it was not well tuned. gcc-1 did not have an
instruction scheduler and could not fill delayed branch slots. gcc-2 does
both. I understand that this makes a difference of about 30% on the
Sparc; the number is probably similar on the MIPS. gcc-1 did a good job
on the CISC architectures (Vax and 680x0) it was initially designed for.
Joe Buck email@example.com
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.