Re: 'Superoptimizers' (Jason Taylor)
Fri, 17 Nov 1995 04:37:54 GMT

          From comp.compilers

Related articles
Re: 'Superoptimizers' (1995-11-09)
Re: 'Superoptimizers' (1995-11-14)
Re: 'Superoptimizers' (1995-11-15)
Re: 'Superoptimizers' (1995-11-17)
Re: 'Superoptimizers' (1995-11-20)
Re: 'Superoptimizers' (1995-11-21)
Re: 'Superoptimizers' (1995-11-22)
Re: 'Superoptimizers' (1995-11-23)
Re: 'Superoptimizers' (1995-11-27)
Re: 'Superoptimizers' (1995-11-28)
| List of all articles for this month |

Newsgroups: comp.benchmarks,comp.compilers,comp.arch
From: (Jason Taylor)
Keywords: optimize, performance
Organization: University of Maryland College Park
References: <47b2fl$> 95-11-080
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 1995 04:37:54 GMT

Andy Glew ( wrote:
: (b) Used "compilation time" as a command line parameter. I.e. I wish
: I could say "take as long as 30 minutes to optimize, but not much
: longer" - and have the compiler quickly produce a quick and dirty
: code, and then refine it a few times by applying more and more
: optimizations.
: Rather than me, myself, figuring out by hand what compiler
: switches to turn on and off in order to properly balance compilation
: time and execution speed.

I couldn't agree more. Compilers should have a special mode where it
systematically determines what switches are best for a program. And
compile time should not be an issue at all if you use the, say, "-O4"
switch in stead of just "-O". Spec92 is the cause of a zillion
switches that no real scientist has time to care about. (I think that
only the equiv. of "-O" should have been allowed in spec95 for this
very reason, so that I don't pull out hairs wondering what I should do
to shave some time off a 3 hour run.)

Jason Taylor, Greenbelt, MD USA

Post a followup to this message

Return to the comp.compilers page.
Search the comp.compilers archives again.