Re: Compiler Optimisation?

Stefan Monnier <monnier+comp/compilers/news/@tequila.cs.yale.edu>
18 Dec 1998 12:09:50 -0500

          From comp.compilers

Related articles
Compiler Optimisation? iain.bate@cs.york.ac.uk (Iain Bate) (1998-12-06)
Re: Compiler Optimisation? bear@sonic.net (Ray Dillinger) (1998-12-10)
Re: Compiler Optimisation? tc@charlie.cns.iit.edu (Thomas W. Christopher) (1998-12-10)
Re: Compiler Optimisation? silver@mail.webspan.net (Andy Gaynor) (1998-12-13)
Re: Compiler Optimisation? dewarr@my-dejanews.com (1998-12-13)
Re: Compiler Optimisation? albaugh@agames.com (1998-12-13)
Re: Compiler Optimisation? jfc@mit.edu (1998-12-13)
Re: Compiler Optimisation? monnier+comp/compilers/news/@tequila.cs.yale.edu (Stefan Monnier) (1998-12-18)
Re: Compiler Optimisation? bear@sonic.net (Ray Dillinger) (1998-12-18)
| List of all articles for this month |

From: Stefan Monnier <monnier+comp/compilers/news/@tequila.cs.yale.edu>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.compilers
Date: 18 Dec 1998 12:09:50 -0500
Organization: Compilers Central
References: 98-12-010 98-12-016 98-12-024
Keywords: optimize

>>>>> "dewarr" == dewarr <dewarr@my-dejanews.com> writes:
> This is misleading. Many compilers do MUCH more extensive
> peephole optimization. In particular gcc gets a FAR more
> significant improvement from peephole optimization.


This often reflects the fact that optimisations interact and that they
are often designed based on their interactions. In the SML/NJ example
mentioned by someone else, the `contraction' phase is relied upon by
many other optimisations (which end up just restructuring the code,
which in a first step makes it bigger and slower but exposes further
opportunities to the contraction phase).




Stefan


Post a followup to this message

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