Related articles |
---|
Code quality drw@zermelo.mit.edu (1993-01-06) |
Re: Code quality preston@dawn.cs.rice.edu (1993-01-06) |
Re: Code quality davidm@questor.rational.com (1993-01-06) |
Re: Code quality henry@zoo.toronto.edu (1993-01-06) |
Gcc, Lcc, and 2c mike@skinner.cs.uoregon.edu (Michael John Haertel) (1993-01-07) |
Re: Code quality tchannon@black.demon.co.uk (1993-01-07) |
Re: Code quality prener@watson.ibm.com (1993-01-07) |
Re: Code quality ssimmons@convex.com (1993-01-07) |
Re: Code quality bill@amber.csd.harris.com (1993-01-07) |
[8 later articles] |
Newsgroups: | comp.compilers |
From: | davidm@questor.rational.com (David Moore) |
Organization: | Rational |
Date: | Wed, 6 Jan 1993 19:24:21 GMT |
References: | 93-01-017 |
Keywords: | optimize, comment |
drw@zermelo.mit.edu (Dale R. Worley) writes:
>How important is generated code quality these days? There are a lot of
>good optimization techniques that seem to be adequate for ordinary
>programming. But they still are at least 10% or 20% worse than the ideal.
>Is there much of a market for another 10% in speed of generated code?
It seems to me that compile time is roughly exponential in the deficiency
of the generated code. So, to produce code that is 10% worse than optimal
takes twice as long as it does to produce code 20% less than optimal (if
your compiler is optimizer-bound). I suspect that programmer time required
to get the optimizer solid is also exponential.
So getting that last few percent requires a lot of resources.
Perhaps someone has collected some numbers on this? I am just making the
statement based on a gut feeling gotten from writing an optimizer.
[It varies all over the place. The Princeton/Bell Labs lcc compiler
is supposed to produce better code faster than GCC. Ken Thompson's Plan 9
compiler is supposed to be better still in both dimensions. -John]
--
Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.