Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.
| Related articles |
|---|
| Is this a new idea? M.J.Landzaat@fel.tno.nl (1992-10-28) |
| Re: Is this a new idea? bazyar@csn.org (1992-10-31) |
| Re: Is this a new idea? clyde@hitech.com.au (1992-11-02) |
| Re: Is this a new idea? pcwu@csie.nctu.edu.tw (1992-11-03) |
| Re: Is this a new idea? ryer@inmet.camb.inmet.com (1992-11-03) |
| Re: Is this a new idea? byron@netapp.com (Byron Rakitzis) (1992-11-04) |
| Re: Is this a new idea? ttk@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (1992-11-04) |
| Re: Is this a new idea? dak@sq.sq.com (1992-11-04) |
| Re: Is this a new idea? dnl@macsch.com (1992-11-04) |
| Re: Is this a new idea? tmb@arollaidiap.ch (1992-11-06) |
| Re: Is this a new idea? henry@zoo.toronto.edu (1992-11-08) |
| Re: Is this a new idea? clyde@hitech.com.au (1992-11-07) |
| [9 later articles] |
| Newsgroups: | comp.compilers |
| From: | Byron Rakitzis <byron@netapp.com> |
| Organization: | Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest) |
| Date: | Wed, 4 Nov 1992 08:57:30 GMT |
| Keywords: | parse, performance |
| References: | 92-10-113 |
>[Scanning and parsing can be as much as half of the total time that a
>compiler takes (so says Ken Thompson of his Plan 9 C compiler) and that is
>quite amenable to incremental precalculation. -John]
Well, that's Ken's compiler, which doesn't do hairy optimizations, leaves
a lot of work for the loader, and has a fast in-core implementation of
tree passes to boot. ("Turbo C for Unix")
I think the %-age for gcc (and I am assuming that most commercial
multi-pass, aggressively optimizing compilers show similar performance) is
considerably lower, around 20%. I am not sure of the figure, it is from
memory from around the time that gcc2 was being released. This would have
been with the optimizer turned on, of course.
Sorry I can't be more specific right now.
--
Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.