Related articles |
---|
Re: GCC SUN-4 code speed mike@tuvie (1990-07-14) |
Re: GCC SUN-4 code speed dave@imax.com (1990-07-16) |
Newsgroups: | gnu.gcc,comp.compilers |
From: | mike@tuvie (Inst.f.Techn.Informatik) |
Followup-To: | gnu.gcc,comp.compilers |
Keywords: | benchmarks, gcc |
Organization: | Technical University of Vienna, AUSTRIA |
References: | <1016@soleil.UUCP> <37555@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> |
Date: | Sat, 14 Jul 90 23:09:54 GMT |
In article <1016@soleil.UUCP> gendel@soleil.UUCP (Gary Gendel) writes:
>SUN (cc -O2)
>GCC 1.37.1 (gcc -O) 12% slower, same size executable
>GCC 1.37.1 (gcc -O -fstrength-reduce -finline-functions -fforce-mem)
> 6% slower, 50% larger executable.
If you look at gcc and compare it with the Dragon book's description of a
code generator generator, you will find aut that gcc has just about
everything a code geneator generator needs to have. Specification of
code to be matched, semantic attributes, constraints for operands, the
ability to simply emit a constant pattern or to use a piece of code to
find the exact instruction...
Note that if you look at gcc as a code generator generator, it is doing very
well indeed. Most generators cannot boast getting roughly equivalent
(or in some cases even better) performance than an equivalent hand-coded
program.
bye,
mike
Michael K. Gschwind mike@vlsivie.at
Technical University, Vienna mike@vlsivie.uucp
Voice: (++43).1.58801 8144 e182202@awituw01.bitnet
Fax: (++43).1.569697
--
Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.