Related articles |
---|
[5 earlier articles] |
Re: Making a partial C compiler cyberheg@l115.langkaer.dk (John Eskie) (2003-05-29) |
Re: Making a partial C compiler vbdis@aol.com (2003-06-03) |
Re: Making a partial C compiler lars@bearnip.com (2003-06-03) |
Re: Making a partial C compiler boldyrev@cgitftp.uiggm.nsc.ru (Ivan Boldyrev) (2003-06-03) |
Re: Making a partial C compiler jyrixx@astro.temple.edu (2003-06-03) |
Re: Making a partial C compiler torbenm@diku.dk (2003-06-05) |
Re: Making a partial C compiler cyberheg@l115.langkaer.dk (John Eskie) (2003-06-08) |
Re: Making a partial C compiler cyberheg@l115.langkaer.dk (John Eskie) (2003-06-08) |
Re: Making a partial C compiler vbdis@aol.com (2003-06-20) |
From: | "John Eskie" <cyberheg@l115.langkaer.dk> |
Newsgroups: | comp.compilers |
Date: | 8 Jun 2003 21:58:49 -0400 |
Organization: | TDC Internet |
References: | 03-05-139 03-05-202 03-06-012 |
Keywords: | tools, design |
Posted-Date: | 08 Jun 2003 21:58:49 EDT |
> This 'dead code' has a good chance of being thrown out by the optimizer.
Yes thats correct. If you make some conditional code around it, the
compiler has a harder time to see if the code is in use or not (based
on a dummy condition which always goes in one direction). Ofcourse it
would require a bit experimentation and knowledge of how the compiler
optimizes.
>> 3. Rearranging of code so if you got 3 blocks of statements A, B, C you
can
> > do:
> > 4. Dynamic "linking" by making exact function calls to be resolved at
> > runtime by using function pointers.
>
> I can imagine that both measures would be quite detrimental to the
> program's performance as it requires excessive branching.
Yes it would decrease performance but I find it acceptable to a
certain level. What I want is to produce code bloat as much as
allowed.
-- John
Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.