Re: Thompson's 2c vs. gcc

pardo@cs.washington.edu (David Keppel)
Fri, 5 Feb 1993 20:53:40 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: pardo@cs.washington.edu (David Keppel)
Keywords: architecture, GCC
Organization: Computer Science & Engineering, U. of Washington, Seattle
References: 93-01-205 93-02-049
Date: Fri, 5 Feb 1993 20:53:40 GMT

>>>[Comparison of output code from GCC, lcc, and Plan 9 C compilers.]


Preston Briggs writes:
>>[GCC 1.35 didn't generate very good MIPS code. It's better now.]


jbuck@forney.berkeley.edu (Joe Buck):
>[Gcc did not have an instruction scheduler and did not fill delayed
> branch slots. Adding them makes about a 30% difference on SPARCs.]


I believe that GCC ports rely on the MIPS assembler. The MIPS assembler
by default provides a virtual machine without delay slots then rearranges
instructions to fill the real delay slots. The assembler can be told to
reveal the underlying machine to allow explicit delay slot filling.


The current GCC produces code both ways. It is thus better able to take
advantage of delay slot filling. But even the older ports did some just
by virtue of the assembler.


I do agree that GCC produces better quality MIPS code than it did a few
years ago.


;-D on ( Quality time with your compiler ) Pardo
--


Post a followup to this message

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