Re: Encripted source as an ANDF

kbierman@sun.com
Tue, 30 May 89 11:34:04 PDT

          From comp.compilers

Related articles
[2 earlier articles]
Re: Encripted source as an ANDF henry@zoo.toronto.edu (1989-05-24)
Re: Encripted source as an ANDF harvard!cs.utah.edu!esunix!bpendlet (1989-05-24)
Re: Encripted source as an ANDF jeffb@grace.cs.washington.edu (1989-05-24)
Re: Encripted source as an ANDF bpendlet@esunix.uucp (1989-05-24)
Re: Encripted source as an ANDF rfg@mcc.com (1989-05-27)
Re: encripted source as an ANDF rfg@mcc.com (1989-05-27)
Re: Encripted source as an ANDF kbierman@sun.com (1989-05-30)
Re: encripted source as an ANDF henry@zoo.toronto.edu (1989-05-31)
| List of all articles for this month |
Date: Tue, 30 May 89 11:34:04 PDT
From: kbierman@sun.com
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
In-Reply-To: <3990@ima.ima.isc.com>
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mountain View

In article <3990@ima.ima.isc.com> it is written:
>.... talks about two type of "optimizers" here, i.e. SOURCE => ANDF and
>ANDF => MACHINE_CODE. One of these possibilities is totally silly, in the
>current context.
>
>The real beauty of the simple idea I proposed was that almost everybody
>already has a C compiler. In the scheme I suggested, this compiler would
>also serve (without major modifications) and the ANDF compiler.
>
>Given this assumption, it should be obvious that there would be no need
>whatsoever for a SOURCE => ANDF "optimizer" since the ANDF => MACHINE_CODE
>transformation (i.e. "normal" compliation") would (presumably) already
>have a good optimizer.


.... more stuff about "good optimizing compilers"


The real fly in the ointment is that C semantics sabatoge many of the
best optimizations currently available to other languages (like most
good fortran compilers).


A _few_ are


1) unconstrained pointers,
2) "for" vs "do"
      (while the author of the proposal may think it best to reduce
      directly to GOTO's, DO loops ensure that the control variable may
      not be modified by anything in its body ... thus allowing many
      interesting optimizations ... w/o having to do extensive analysis)


3) lack of knowledge about rules of complex arithmetic
4) trig functions (built into fortran) and many other items of interest in
      the "real "go fast"" community.


Try compiling C on your local supercomputer (or many RISC machines)
vs. fortran ... typically the fortran optimizer generates much tighter
code.


This is not to say Fortran is "better" than C; it simply features well
suited to numerical computation and automatic optimization thereof.
--
Keith H. Bierman |*My thoughts are my own. Only my work belongs to Sun*
It's Not My Fault | Marketing Technical Specialist ! kbierman@sun.com
I Voted for Bill & | Languages and Performance Tools.
Opus (* strange as it may seem, I do more engineering now *)
--


Post a followup to this message

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