Re: performance-oriented languages?

glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu>
24 Oct 2004 23:39:49 -0400

          From comp.compilers
Related articles
[6 earlier articles]
Re: performance-oriented languages? pkk@spth.de (Philipp Klaus Krause) (2004-10-09)
Re: performance-oriented languages? wildstf@hotmail.com (Stefano Lanzavecchia) (2004-10-12)
Re: performance-oriented languages? rrr@ieee.org (2004-10-17)
Re: performance-oriented languages? skaller@nospam.com.au (John Max Skaller) (2004-10-21)
Re: performance-oriented languages? beliavsky@aol.com (2004-10-21)
Re: performance-oriented languages? dberlin@dberlin.org (Daniel Berlin) (2004-10-23)
Re: performance-oriented languages? gah@ugcs.caltech.edu (glen herrmannsfeldt) (2004-10-24)
| List of all articles for this month |
From: glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu>
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: 24 Oct 2004 23:39:49 -0400
Organization: Comcast Online
References: 04-10-015 04-10-151 04-10-162
Keywords: Fortran, practice
Posted-Date: 24 Oct 2004 23:39:49 EDT

Daniel Berlin wrote:


(snip)


> What an incredibly strange thing to say, when one of the most optimizing
> compilers out there (Intel's), is written in C.
> I do agree that it's not necessarily the nicest language in the world to
> work with when trying to write high level optimizations, but claiming you
> can't write a good compiler in it is squarely contradicted by the fact
> that Intel did and does it.


The optimizing code for the IBM S/360 Fortran H compiler
was written in Fortran. (That is, Fortran 66 with a few extensions
such as the IAND, IOR, ISHIFT, and IXOR functions.) The rest
of it is in assembly. I would say that C is much better for
writing high level optimizations than Fortran 66.


-- glen

Post a followup to this message

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