|Effectiveness of compilers today firstname.lastname@example.org (1993-02-14)|
|Re: Effectiveness of compilers today email@example.com (1993-02-16)|
|Effectiveness of compilers today firstname.lastname@example.org (1993-02-17)|
|Re: Effectiveness of compilers today email@example.com (Josh N. Pritikin) (1993-02-17)|
|Re: Effectiveness of compilers today firstname.lastname@example.org (1993-02-17)|
|Re: Effectiveness of compilers today email@example.com (1993-02-17)|
|Re: Effectiveness of compilers today firstname.lastname@example.org (mohd hanafiah abdullah) (1993-02-17)|
|Re: Effectiveness of compilers today email@example.com (1993-02-18)|
|Re: Effectiveness of compilers today firstname.lastname@example.org (1993-02-18)|
|Re: Effectiveness of compilers today email@example.com (1993-02-18)|
|[8 later articles]|
|From:||"Josh N. Pritikin" <firstname.lastname@example.org>|
|Date:||Wed, 17 Feb 1993 15:37:48 GMT|
>Could someone tell me more about this. Are there any tests between common
>compilers and assembler programmers. Who is the best?
>[This has indeed been discussed to death in the past. My impression is that
>for a small chunk of code, a human can almost always meet or beat a compiler,
>but for large chunks people aren't as persistent as compilers at optimizing
Assembly programmers will never have job security! Take a look at the GNU
GSO is a function sequence generator that uses an exhaustive
generate-and-test approach to find the shortest instruction sequence for a
given function. You have to tell the superoptimizer which function and
which CPU you want to get code for.
Sample GSO results:
SPARC code for i5 = ((signed) i0 > (signed) i1):
Faster 80x86 code than the standard cmpl/seta/and for
ecx = ((unsigned) eax > (unsigned) edx):
MC88000 code for 'find first set bit', i.e., r6 = ffs(r2):
POWER (RS/6000) code for r6 = ((unsigned) r3 < (unsigned) r4) + r5
Aide from the CPUs in the examples above, GSO generates code for
MC680x0, Amd290xx, Pyramid(SP,AP,XP), and Alpha.
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.