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

jacob navia <jacob@nospam.org>
Tue, 18 Mar 2008 11:57:11 +0100

          From comp.compilers

Related articles
Is There Still a Need for "Turbo" Compilers? jlforrest@berkeley.edu (Jon Forrest) (2008-03-17)
Re: Is There Still a Need for "Turbo" Compilers? DrDiettrich1@aol.com (Hans-Peter Diettrich) (2008-03-18)
Re: Is There Still a Need for "Turbo" Compilers? nmh@t3x.org (Nils M Holm) (2008-03-18)
Re: Is There Still a Need for "Turbo" Compilers? marcov@stack.nl (Marco van de Voort) (2008-03-18)
Re: Is There Still a Need for "Turbo" Compilers? haberg_20080313@math.su.se (Hans Aberg) (2008-03-18)
Re: Is There Still a Need for "Turbo" Compilers? jacob@nospam.org (jacob navia) (2008-03-18)
Re: Is There Still a Need for "Turbo" Compilers? dot@dotat.at (Tony Finch) (2008-03-18)
Re: Is There Still a Need for "Turbo" Compilers? gah@ugcs.caltech.edu (glen herrmannsfeldt) (2008-03-18)
Re: Is There Still a Need for "Turbo" Compilers? gene.ressler@gmail.com (Gene) (2008-03-18)
Re: Is There Still a Need for "Turbo" Compilers? preston.briggs@gmail.com (preston.briggs@gmail.com) (2008-03-24)
| List of all articles for this month |
From: jacob navia <jacob@nospam.org>
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 11:57:11 +0100
Organization: les newsgroups par Orange
References: 08-03-067
Keywords: performance
Posted-Date: 18 Mar 2008 09:09:02 EDT

Jon Forrest wrote:
> Those of us who have been around a while still remember the miracle of
> Borland's "Turbo" languages. They were so much faster than anything
> else available at the time that they made the compile/link step take a
> negligible amount of time. Given how slow I/O was in those days, this
> was a very welcome development.
>
> Turbo languages sacrifice code optimization for quick build time, and
> are more suited for development and debug stages that final code
> production. They also avoid I/O by keeping the output of compiler
> stages in memory.
>
> However, these days there aren't any "Turbo" language implementations
> that I'm aware of.


The lcc-win compiler is one of the fastest compilers under the windows
system (linux/AIX versions exist too).


It is fast because it keeps everything in memory, without building any
intermediate files.


Compared to gcc the compilation speed ratio is 1:6 or 1:10, it
depends.


> Is this because modern hardware is so fast that it isn't worth
> developing compilers and linkers optimized for speed?


No. It is because compilers and languages are becoming so BLOATED that
they loose all perspective from their user's needs.


> By using proper command line arguments to gcc, can you get
> quasi-Turbo performance compared to using arguments that result in
> highly-optimized code?




"quasi Turbo" is an exaggeration here. That compiler is one
of the slowest compilers in existence.


> John Ousterhout, the inventor of Tcl/Tk, is the founder of a company
> that produces software that optimizes parallelizing of the commands in
> makefiles, which is one way to speed up the building of large software
> packages. But, this doesn't do anything to the compilers themselves.
>
> But, how fast could a compiler be given today's vast amount of virtual
> memory and multiple-core CPUs?


Download lcc-win from the link below and see how fast it is.
http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32


--
jacob navia
jacob at jacob point remcomp point fr
logiciels/informatique
http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32



Post a followup to this message

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