|Smallest Optimizer SAND_DUANE@tandem.com (1995-02-18)|
|Re: Smallest Optimizer email@example.com (1995-02-21)|
|Re: Smallest Optimizer firstname.lastname@example.org (1995-02-24)|
|Re: Smallest Optimizer email@example.com (1995-02-27)|
|Re: Smallest Optimizer geoffl@GS10.SP.cs.cmu.edu (Geoff Langdale) (1995-02-27)|
|Re: Smallest Optimizer Dave@occl-cam.demon.co.uk (Dave Lloyd) (1995-03-04)|
|Re: Smallest Optimizer Dave@occl-cam.demon.co.uk (Dave Lloyd) (1995-03-11)|
|From:||firstname.lastname@example.org (Jeff Martens)|
|Organization:||Hood College Dept. of Math and CS|
|Date:||Mon, 27 Feb 1995 14:37:05 GMT|
email@example.com (Preston Briggs) writes:
>suggested including an optimization only if the net effect was to
>speed up the compiler (when compiled with itself).
> you end up with an optimizer that is effective on compilers,
> but perhaps not your application code (e.g.,, optimizers
> don't benefit from vectorization, but many scientific
> applications will).
Also compilers use little if any floating point code. So any
floating point optimization will have no benefit when compiling
-- Jeff (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.