Re: Thompson's 2c vs. gcc

jbuck@forney.berkeley.edu (Joe Buck)
Thu, 4 Feb 1993 18:57:31 GMT

          From comp.compilers
Related articles
Re: Architecture description languages for compilers? pardo@cs.washington.edu (1993-01-28)
Thompson's 2c vs. gcc mike@skinner.cs.uoregon.edu (Michael John Haertel) (1993-01-29)
Re: Thompson's 2c vs. gcc preston@dawn.cs.rice.edu (1993-02-02)
Re: Thompson's 2c vs. gcc mike@skinner.cs.uoregon.edu (Michael John Haertel) (1993-02-04)
Re: Thompson's 2c vs. gcc jbuck@forney.berkeley.edu (1993-02-04)
Re: Thompson's 2c vs. gcc pardo@cs.washington.edu (1993-02-05)
Re: Thompson's 2c vs. gcc meissner@osf.org (1993-02-05)
| List of all articles for this month |
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
From: jbuck@forney.berkeley.edu (Joe Buck)
Keywords: architecture, GCC
Organization: U. C. Berkeley
References: 93-01-205 93-02-042
Date: Thu, 4 Feb 1993 18:57:31 GMT

Michael John Haertel <mike@skinner.cs.uoregon.edu> writes:
>I hadn't realized, or had forgotten, that Thompson had conducted his
>comparisons on the MIPS. The MIPS port of gcc version 1.x was certainly
>not well tuned.


It wasn't just that it was not well tuned. gcc-1 did not have an
instruction scheduler and could not fill delayed branch slots. gcc-2 does
both. I understand that this makes a difference of about 30% on the
Sparc; the number is probably similar on the MIPS. gcc-1 did a good job
on the CISC architectures (Vax and 680x0) it was initially designed for.
--
Joe Buck jbuck@ohm.berkeley.edu
--

Post a followup to this message

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