Re: Table compression (Henry Spencer)
13 Oct 2005 20:45:19 -0400

          From comp.compilers

Related articles
[6 earlier articles]
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 (Chris F Clark) (2005-10-03)
Re: Table compression (2005-10-13)
| List of all articles for this month |

From: (Henry Spencer)
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: 13 Oct 2005 20:45:19 -0400
Organization: SP Systems, Toronto, Canada
References: 05-09-130
Keywords: performance
Posted-Date: 13 Oct 2005 20:45:19 EDT

At the end of a message by Leonardo Teixeira Passos <>
the moderator butted in:
>[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...

It's still an issue, but for a more subtle reason: the CPUs are getting
faster much more rapidly than the memory. Increasingly, it is worth using
a *lot* of CPU cycles to avoid a memory reference, or to keep memory
references sequential so that you make effective use of a whole cache line
before going to memory for another, or to keep tables small enough to fit
in the fastest cache.
-- is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer
mail to henry at instead. |

Post a followup to this message

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