|Re: 'Superoptimizers' email@example.com (1995-11-09)|
|Re: 'Superoptimizers' firstname.lastname@example.org (1995-11-14)|
|Re: 'Superoptimizers' email@example.com (1995-11-15)|
|Re: 'Superoptimizers' firstname.lastname@example.org (1995-11-17)|
|Re: 'Superoptimizers' email@example.com (1995-11-20)|
|Re: 'Superoptimizers' firstname.lastname@example.org (1995-11-21)|
|Re: 'Superoptimizers' email@example.com (1995-11-22)|
|Re: 'Superoptimizers' firstname.lastname@example.org (1995-11-23)|
|Re: 'Superoptimizers' email@example.com (1995-11-27)|
|Re: 'Superoptimizers' firstname.lastname@example.org (1995-11-28)|
|From:||email@example.com (Nick Maclaren)|
|Organization:||University of Cambridge, England|
|References:||<firstname.lastname@example.org> 95-11-080 95-11-141|
|Date:||Mon, 20 Nov 1995 15:30:29 GMT|
email@example.com (Bill Leonard) writes:
|> Trouble is, the time taken in most optimizers is not in performing the
|> optimizations, but in looking for the opportunities. ...
|> If someone wants a topic for research, here it is: Come up with a fast (and
|> reliable) predictor of optimizations.
The trouble is that it is a solved problem, and is equivalent to
predicting whether a Turing machine will halt! At best, you can get
it right most of the time.
I would slightly dispute your statement that it is likely that there
are few opportunities for optimisation - it is more usual that there
are huge numbers, but insufficient information to decide which ones
will do good, and which will do harm! But I rather doubt that you
would classify such things as opportunities :-)
University of Cambridge Computer Laboratory,
New Museums Site, Pembroke Street, Cambridge CB2 3QG, England.
Tel.: +44 1223 334761 Fax: +44 1223 334679
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.