|Effectiveness of compilers today firstname.lastname@example.org (1993-02-14)|
|Re: Effectiveness of compilers today email@example.com (1993-02-18)|
|Superoptimizers (was Re: Effectiveness of compilers today) firstname.lastname@example.org (1993-02-18)|
|Re: Superoptimizers (was Re: Effectiveness of compilers today) email@example.com (1993-02-19)|
|Re: Superoptimizers (was Re: Effectiveness of compilers today) firstname.lastname@example.org (1993-02-21)|
|From:||email@example.com (Dale R. Worley)|
|Organization:||MIT Dept. of Tetrapilotomy, Cambridge, MA, USA|
|Date:||Thu, 18 Feb 1993 17:01:35 GMT|
firstname.lastname@example.org (Preston Briggs) writes:
Unfortunately, [superoptimizers] have somewhat limited
applicability. You can use them to find nice translations of
particular idioms that programmers _might_ use; but wouldn't it be
nice to attack the code that the programmer really did write (e.g.,
most programs multiply by 4 and 8, easy cases; very few programs
multiply by 123456789).
I've wondered if it's possible to have a program grovel the ASTs of a
bunch of programs and extract out "common" combinations of operations that
should be candidates for superoptimizer investigation.
Dale Worley Dept. of Math., MIT email@example.com
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.