|Re: Architecture description languages for compilers? firstname.lastname@example.org (1993-01-28)|
|fast compilers [Re: Thompson's 2c vs. gcc] email@example.com (1993-02-06)|
|Re: fast compilers [Re: Thompson's 2c vs. gcc] firstname.lastname@example.org (1993-02-07)|
|Re: fast compilers [Re: Thompson's 2c vs. gcc] email@example.com (1993-02-11)|
|From:||firstname.lastname@example.org (Peter Su)|
|Organization:||Duke University CS Dept., Durham, NC|
|Date:||Sun, 7 Feb 1993 17:16:31 GMT|
email@example.com (Ozan Yigit) writes:
Is there any interest in very fast compilers that sacrifice some code
compactness and speed ... for sheer compilation speed?
[Microsoft makes a fair amount of money selling Quick C, which compiles a
lot faster than regular MS C and produces worse code. ... . -John]
These systems, and others like Think C on the Mac also depend on a very
fast link phase for their quick turnaround. I think they link mostly in
memory and with indirect jump tables and whatnot.
There was an SP&E paper on an incremental linker a while back that said it
increased UNIX compile cycles by huge factors.
Department of Computer Science, Duke University, Durham, NC 27706
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.