|strange compiler optimizations email@example.com (Quinn Tyler Jackson) (1998-08-10)|
|Re: strange compiler optimizations firstname.lastname@example.org (Matt Timmermans) (1998-08-13)|
|Re: strange compiler optimizations email@example.com (Chris Clark USG) (1998-08-19)|
|From:||"Matt Timmermans" <firstname.lastname@example.org>|
|Date:||13 Aug 1998 22:01:47 -0400|
|Organization:||IGS - Information Gateway Services|
Quinn Tyler Jackson wrote in message 98-08-042...
>Why on earth did OPTIMIZE FOR SPEED do so poorly with PLPM and OPTIMIZE FOR
>SIZE do so well, where it behaved as expected for LPM?
Most likely, optimizing for size allowed some important inner loop, and all
the functions it calls, to remain in the cache while executing. This is an
important boundary, because as soon as the loop gets a bit too big, the
whole thing has to be loaded from memory (or the next level of cache) on
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.