Re: 50 times longer to compile than copy

"Conor O'Neill" <ONeillCJ@logica.com>
9 Nov 2000 12:10:08 -0500

          From comp.compilers
Related articles
50 times longer to compile than copy smnsn@my-deja.com (2000-11-04)
Re: 50 times longer to compile than copy ian@jawssystems.com (2000-11-05)
Re: 50 times longer to compile than copy vii@penguinpowered.com (John Fremlin) (2000-11-05)
Re: 50 times longer to compile than copy s337240@student.uq.edu.au (Trent Waddington) (2000-11-05)
Re: 50 times longer to compile than copy chase@naturalbridge.com (David Chase) (2000-11-07)
Re: 50 times longer to compile than copy Sid-Ahmed-Ali.TOUATI@inria.fr (Sid Ahmed Ali TOUATI) (2000-11-07)
Re: 50 times longer to compile than copy ONeillCJ@logica.com (Conor O'Neill) (2000-11-09)
Re: 50 times longer to compile than copy lex@cc.gatech.edu (Lex Spoon) (2000-11-09)
Re: 50 times longer to compile than copy christl@belinda.fmi.uni-passau.de (2000-11-09)
Re: 50 times longer to compile than copy jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr (jacob navia) (2000-11-09)
Re: 50 times longer to compile than copy vbdis@aol.com (2000-11-11)
| List of all articles for this month |
From: "Conor O'Neill" <ONeillCJ@logica.com>
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: 9 Nov 2000 12:10:08 -0500
Organization: Speaking for myself
References: 00-11-034 00-11-056
Keywords: optimize, practice, comment
Posted-Date: 09 Nov 2000 12:10:07 EST

>[Even without optimization options, there are often worse-than-linear
>parts of the compiler, such as the case hash function routine that David
>Chase mentioned a few messages ago. -John]


This just begs the question of what does 'optimisation' mean.


Question: would anyone consider it acceptable that a 'non-optimising'
mode of a compiler used an 'if-else' sequence to implement all switch
statements?
--
Conor O'Neill, Bristol, UK
[I would. -John]

Post a followup to this message

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