Re: Code quality

glew@pdx007.intel.com (Andy Glew)
Mon, 25 Jan 1993 07:59:06 GMT

          From comp.compilers
Related articles
[7 earlier articles]
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)
Re: Code quality shebs@apple.com (1993-01-13)
Re: Code quality glew@pdx007.intel.com (1993-01-25)
Re: Code quality wjw@eb.ele.tue.nl (1993-02-01)
| List of all articles for this month |
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
From: glew@pdx007.intel.com (Andy Glew)
Organization: Intel Corp., Hillsboro, Oregon
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 07:59:06 GMT
Keywords: optimize
References: 93-01-017 93-01-033

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?


>From a hardware company's point of view:
========================================


10% is *definitely* interesting.


Even 1% wins are interesting, because if you get enough of them...


Modern microprocessors of comparable price sit in a range of maybe 40%.
10% is a significant chunk of your competitive advantage. It's equivalent
to a few months of hardware development. If you don't go for the
optimizing compiler, your competitor will.


Moreover, compilers have the advantage of being able to be released
*between* silicon releases - giving a midlife kicker to your product.




On the other hand:
==================


I've heard of software companies for which compile time is everything, who
refuse to add optimizations that will make -O more than twice as slow as
non-optimizing.


The marketplace takes all kinds.
--
Andy Glew, glew@ichips.intel.com
Intel Corp., M/S JF1-19, 5200 NE Elam Young Pkwy,
Hillsboro, Oregon 97124-6497
--

Post a followup to this message

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