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

glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu>
Tue, 18 Mar 2008 12:52:56 -0800

          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: glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu>
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 12:52:56 -0800
Organization: Compilers Central
References: 08-03-067 08-03-071
Keywords: performance, comment
Posted-Date: 18 Mar 2008 23:36:38 EDT

Nils M Holm wrote:


(snip)


> 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).


It seems that compilers not requiring huge amounts of memory is also a
lost art.


There are people trying to get gcc running on S/370, with its 24 bit
address space and maybe 8M available to a user process. It seems that
gcc can't compile itself in 8M.


The solution, then, is a new architecture based on S/370 but with more
address bits and a modified MVS to run on it.


-- glen
[My, that's bloated. Sixth edition Unix could compile itself in
about 32K. -John]

Post a followup to this message

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