Re: Is There Still a Need for "Turbo" Compilers?

Jon Forrest <jlforrest@berkeley.edu> wrote:
> However, these days there aren't any "Turbo" language implementations
> that I'm aware of. Is this because modern hardware is so fast that it
> isn't worth developing compilers and linkers optimized for speed? By
> using proper command line arguments to gcc, can you get quasi-Turbo
> performance compared to using arguments that result in
> highly-optimized code?


Given the amount of algorithms with non-linear complexity in an
optimizing compiler, I doubt that an optimizing compiler will ever
result in "Turbo" performance.


For a recent compiler that puts emphasis on compilation speed, have a
look at Tiny C: http://fabrice.bellard.free.fr/tcc/. It claims to
compile a 2004 Linux kernel in 10 seconds.


On the other hand, have a look at modern GCCs: in spite of all those
fancy optimizations, they keep getting slower and slower.


I agree that fast compilers seem to become a lost art, and I think
that this is unfortunate. Fast turn-around cycles are a major factor
in productivity, and you can still do the final build with an
optimizing compiler (or with optimization enabled).


I guess this is why I am using mostly interpreters these days,
but I digress.


Nils
--
Nils M Holm <nmh@t3x.org> -- http://t3x.org/nmh/

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