Re: Table compression (Hannah Schroeter)
30 Sep 2005 02:01:45 -0400

          From comp.compilers

Related articles
table compression (Ralph Boland) (2001-11-04)
Re: table compression (Olivier Ridoux) (2001-11-08)
Re: table compression (2001-11-08)
Re: table compression (Heng Yuan) (2001-11-08)
Re: table compression (Dennis Mickunas) (2001-11-08)
Table compression (Leonardo Teixeira Passos) (2005-09-27)
Re: Table compression (2005-09-30)
Re: Table compression (2005-09-30)
Re: Table compression (Cleo Saulnier) (2005-09-30)
Re: Table compression (Peter Flass) (2005-10-02)
Re: Table compression (Paul Mann) (2005-10-02)
RE: Table compression (Quinn Tyler Jackson) (2005-10-02)
Re: Table compression (Chris F Clark) (2005-10-03)
Re: Table compression (2005-10-13)
| List of all articles for this month |

From: (Hannah Schroeter)
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: 30 Sep 2005 02:01:45 -0400
Organization: Schlund + Partner AG
References: 05-09-130
Keywords: practice
Posted-Date: 30 Sep 2005 02:01:45 EDT


I'm actually more replying to John's comment than to the original

Leonardo Teixeira Passos <> wrote:

In fact, John wrote:
>[Since computer memories have gotten so big, does anyone care about
>table compression any more? When your whole compiler had to fit into
>64K, compressing a few K out of the table was a big deal. But now, a
>typical Windows program has a megabyte of unused libraries that aren't
>work stripping out, so why waste time with the tables? Well, unless
>you're squeezing it into an embedded chip, but even they have a lot
>more memory than they used to. -John]

I'd guess you'd still have a better cache behaviour if the tables
or a bigger fraction thereof fits into the L1 d-cache. So I'd think
table compression may still make sense nowadays.

Kind regards,


Post a followup to this message

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