Related articles |
---|
[8 earlier articles] |
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) |
Re: Is this a new idea? dlarsson%abbaut@Sweden.EU.net (1992-11-11) |
Re: Is this a new idea? macrakis@osf.org (1992-11-11) |
Re: Is this a new idea? pardo@cs.washington.edu (1992-11-12) |
Re: Is this a new idea? thinkage!dat@math.uwaterloo.ca (1992-11-11) |
Re: Is this a new idea? andrewb@lynx.cs.washington.edu (1992-11-16) |
Re: Is this a new idea? drw@euclid.mit.edu (1992-11-16) |
Re: Is this a new idea? firth@sei.cmu.edu (1992-11-17) |
Re: Is this a new idea? clyde@hitech.com.au (1992-11-18) |
Re: Is this a new idea? macrakis@osf.org (1992-11-20) |
Newsgroups: | comp.compilers |
From: | pardo@cs.washington.edu (David Keppel) |
Organization: | Computer Science & Engineering, U. of Washington, Seattle |
Date: | Thu, 12 Nov 1992 06:28:15 GMT |
References: | 92-10-113 92-11-032 |
Keywords: | parse, performance |
>>>[How about overlapping compilation with editing?]
John Levine writes:
>>[Scanning and parsing are up to half the compile time (Thompson's
>> Plan 9 C compiler)]
>[The Plan 9 compiler doesn't do ambitious optimizations.]
I believe Thompson reports code quality comparable to e.g., GNU CC, and in
any case the original poster was asking about compilation for a debugging
environment, where code quality is less important. You have to be careful
about your target audience!
As an aside, the IBM PL.8 compiler did particularly naive code generation
when optimization was off. The total compile time went down with
optimization on! That was because the naive code was so much larger and
the reduced I/O and assembly costs paid for the cost of optmization.
;-D on ( Compilo-mizer ) Pardo
--
Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.