Re: kickass optimizing compilers?

"dablick" <db@digital.com> wrote
> Regarding ASM jocks vs compilers...
>
> Back in the days when machines were fairly simple, I could buy that ASM
> jocks might, with great effort, be able to out-code compilers.
>
> But so much has changed.
>
> There's a running joke that what the RISC acronym really means is: Relegate
> Important Stuff to Compilers! :-)
>
> 1) Computers can do more and accordingly, so can compilers ...
>
> 2) Machines have gotten WAY more complex ...


What a load of croc. A program can never be smarter then a human at
all times. It might do an overall better job, but there are a lot
places it couldn't even come close to taking smart enough decisions.
And your compiler which was compared to the home assigment of students
isn't quite fair is it? They are students who are just trying to learn
not experts of assembly coding or that certain cpu. Even today, in
2004 no compiler comes close to an experienced asm coder. But the
difference is that compilers generate good enough code to be used. But
the innerloops of power demanding apps should always be written by
hand. There is no way a compiler can come close a good asm coder until
the day computers are able to think for themselfs the way humans do.


[If you've been reading the previous messages in this thread, you'll
have noted that there are some combinations of good compilers and
complex architectures where people just can't keep enough stuff in
their head to produce good code. Try hand-writing code for a VLIW and
you'll see what I mean. -John]

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