Re: Code quality

prener@watson.ibm.com (Dan Prener)
Thu, 7 Jan 1993 07:51:54 GMT

          From comp.compilers
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)
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)
Re: Code quality tm@netcom.com (1993-01-07)
Re: Code quality grover@brahmand.Eng.Sun.COM (1993-01-07)
Re: Code quality drw@riesz.mit.edu (1993-01-08)
Re: Code quality polstra!jdp@uunet.UU.NET (1993-01-12)
[3 later articles]
| List of all articles for this month |
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
From: prener@watson.ibm.com (Dan Prener)
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center, Hawthorne, New York
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 07:51:54 GMT
References: 93-01-017
Keywords: optimize

drw@zermelo.mit.edu (Dale R. Worley) writes:
> How important is generated code quality these days? ...
> Is there much of a market for another 10% in speed of generated code?


One way to look at this question is to consider the combined performance
of the compiler/processor pair as if they were a black box. With some
plausible estimate of the rate of increase in processor speeds, your 10 -
20% speed difference corresponds to getting the black box to market
something like 2 - 4 months later. It is still a matter of opinion as to
how much that is worth. Surely it varies across market segments.
--
                                                                      Dan Prener (prener@watson.ibm.com)
--

Post a followup to this message

Return to the comp.compilers page.
Search the comp.compilers archives again.