Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.
| Related articles |
|---|
| the Evil Effects of Inlining preston@ariel.rice.edu (1991-05-02) |
| Re: the Evil Effects of Inlining ressler@cs.cornell.edu (1991-05-03) |
| Re: the Evil Effects of Inlining daniel@quilty.Stanford.EDU (1991-05-03) |
| Re: the Evil Effects of Inlining gateley@rice.edu (1991-05-03) |
| Re: the Evil Effects of Inlining boehm@parc.xerox.com (1991-05-03) |
| Re: the Evil Effects of Inlining mac@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (1991-05-03) |
| Re: the Evil Effects of Inlining pardo@june.cs.washington.edu (1991-05-03) |
| Re: the Evil Effects of Inlining compres!chris@crackers.clearpoint.com (1991-05-04) |
| [4 later articles] |
| Newsgroups: | comp.compilers |
| From: | ressler@cs.cornell.edu (Gene Ressler) |
| Keywords: | optimize, architecture |
| Organization: | Cornell Univ. CS Dept, Ithaca NY 14853 |
| References: | <7524@ecs.soton.ac.uk> <1991May1.035622.25021@daffy.cs.wisc.edu> <1991May2.180508.17100@rice.edu> |
| Date: | Fri, 3 May 1991 05:20:09 GMT |
These are very good points. My own experiments: Recently did an
event-driven simulator in C. Ran gcc -finline-functions -O on the inner
loop module and got about 12% improvement over plain -O on both
SPARCstation and MIPS. About the same with c89 -Q -O vs c89 -O on an
RS6000 320. In Lucid Common Lisp code for image processing, however, I've
gotten 50% on a SPARC. But you'd expect that with the heavy weight of
Common Lisp's function calls.
Gene Ressler
--
Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.