|Grammars for future languages email@example.com (1995-10-22)|
|Re: Death by error checks. firstname.lastname@example.org (1995-12-19)|
|Performance Regressions; Previously: Death by error checks. email@example.com (1995-12-28)|
|Re: Performance Regressions; Previously: Death by error checks. firstname.lastname@example.org (1995-12-30)|
|From:||email@example.com (Christopher Glaeser)|
|Date:||28 Dec 1995 11:34:19 -0500|
Henry Baker <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> Unfortunately, whereas before, he could rely upon the compiler staying
> just about as stupid from release to release, he now has to contend
> with compilers that get 'smarter' from release to release.
While it is true that many compilers continue to improve with each
release, the *implication* that the performance of a new release is
monotonically non-decreasing is false. It is not uncommon for new
compiler releases to have a ratio of performance improvements versus
performance regressions of about three to one.
Of course, SPEC performance is always monotonically non-decreasing,
even if the release must be postponed. It is possible that a code
fragment of a SPEC benchmark runs slower, but it must be offset by a
code fragment that improves by equal or greater amount, since the
emphasis is on the total sum gain.
Christopher Glaeser email@example.com
Nullstone Corporation http://www.nullstone.com
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.