Re: kickass optimizing compilers?

Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com>
12 Jan 2004 13:25:51 -0500

          From comp.compilers
Related articles
kickass optimizing compilers? vanevery@indiegamedesign.com (Brandon J. Van Every) (2004-01-09)
Re: kickass optimizing compilers? gah@ugcs.caltech.edu (glen herrmannsfeldt) (2004-01-12)
Re: kickass optimizing compilers? toon@moene.indiv.nluug.nl (Toon Moene) (2004-01-12)
Re: kickass optimizing compilers? walter@bytecraft.com (Walter Banks) (2004-01-12)
Re: kickass optimizing compilers? jvorbrueggen@mediasec.de (Jan C.=?iso-8859-1?Q?Vorbr=FCggen?=) (2004-01-12)
Re: kickass optimizing compilers? andrew@codeplay.com (Andrew Richards) (2004-01-12)
Re: kickass optimizing compilers? vanevery@indiegamedesign.com (Brandon J. Van Every) (2004-01-16)
Re: kickass optimizing compilers? colohan+@cs.cmu.edu (Christopher Brian Colohan) (2004-01-16)
Re: kickass optimizing compilers? Jeffrey.Kenton@comcast.net (Jeff Kenton) (2004-01-16)
Re: kickass optimizing compilers? Robert@Knighten.org (Robert Knighten) (2004-01-17)
[6 later articles]
| List of all articles for this month |
From: Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com>
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: 12 Jan 2004 13:25:51 -0500
Organization: Compilers Central
References: 04-01-044
Keywords: optimize, practice, comment
Posted-Date: 12 Jan 2004 13:25:51 EST

John right about size being an issue in compilers vs human
implementation. The underlying reason is the compiler gets to
evaluate the implementation approach with each new compile. The
assembler coder rarely can change all of the code when application
changes are made. Assembly language programmers are limited in the
amount details about the implementation that can be retained.


Compilers do some things better than humans.
    1) Attention to detail. Code sequences that must not be used on a
specific processor for example
    2) Accounting symbol tables , variable re-use
    3) Data flow analysis.
    4) Compilers can use generated code that would be dangerous for assembly
language programmers to use. (Programmers tricks that are either data
dependent or position dependent that must be checked each time the
application is compiler/assembled)


Walter Banks


"Brandon J. Van Every" wrote:


> Can anyone point me at compilers that are considered "state of the
> art" for optimized ASM generation? ...


> [This has come up before. It is indeed usually possible for hand
> written code to beat compilers on small routines, but compilers have
> the advantage that when you give them 100,000 lines of code to
> translate, their eyes don't glaze over. -John]

Post a followup to this message

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