|Compiler back-ends [Q] Ben.Sloman@reading.ac.uk (1995-10-21)|
|Re: Compiler back-ends [Q] email@example.com (1995-10-23)|
|Re: Compiler back-ends [Q] firstname.lastname@example.org (1995-10-25)|
|Re: Compiler back-ends [Q] email@example.com (1995-10-27)|
|Re: Compiler back-ends [Q] firstname.lastname@example.org (1995-10-29)|
|Re: Compiler back-ends [Q] Martin.Jourdan@inria.fr (1995-11-03)|
|Re: Compiler back-ends [Q] email@example.com (Sebastian Schmidt) (1995-11-03)|
|Re: Compiler back-ends [Q] firstname.lastname@example.org (1995-11-03)|
|From:||email@example.com (David Keppel)|
|Organization:||Computer Science & Engineering, U. of Washington, Seattle|
|Date:||Wed, 25 Oct 1995 15:59:46 GMT|
>Ben.Sloman@reading.ac.uk (Ben Sloman) writes:
>> `the back-ends of most production compilers are generated automatically'
>> True or false? On what grounds (examples/references appreciated)?
>> [I'll eat my hat if it's true. -John]
In 95-10-114 firstname.lastname@example.org (Cliff Click) writes:
>[`lcc', `gcc', TI compilers, Motorola compilers.]
Not to forget the Greenhills compilers, which use a proprietary machine
description and have been ported to a variety of systems including x86
FWIW (though this hardly counts as ``most''), I've heard a rumor that
SunSoft has, for several years now, tuned their schedulers using an
automated system rather like Henry Baker's ``Precise Scheduling Without
a Machine Model''. According to rumor, the scheduler executes a suite
of benchmarks, trying each benchmark a variety of scheduling options
and tuning to those options that provide the best measured performance.
They iterate through this several times across a variety of machines,
eventually selecting the option that provides the best overall speedups
without substantially hurting code quality on other Sun platforms. At
least that's the rumor I heard.
(Fortunately, John's hat is made of bread and the strings of Pasta.)
;-D oN ( The back-ends justify the means ) Pardo
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.