Related articles |
---|
[4 earlier articles] |
Re: Effectiveness of compilers today burley@apple-gunkies.gnu.ai.mit.edu (1993-02-17) |
Re: Effectiveness of compilers today jbuck@forney.berkeley.edu (1993-02-17) |
Re: Effectiveness of compilers today napi@cs.indiana.edu (mohd hanafiah abdullah) (1993-02-17) |
Re: Effectiveness of compilers today moss@cs.cmu.edu (1993-02-18) |
Re: Effectiveness of compilers today preston@dawn.cs.rice.edu (1993-02-18) |
Re: Effectiveness of compilers today roth@helena.cs.rice.edu (1993-02-18) |
Re: Effectiveness of compilers today pardo@cs.washington.edu (1993-02-19) |
Re: Effectiveness of compilers today kjb@cgl.citri.edu.au (1993-02-19) |
Re: Effectiveness of compilers today kanze@us-es.sel.de (1993-02-20) |
Re: Effectiveness of compilers today tchannon@black.demon.co.uk (1993-02-19) |
Re: Effectiveness of compilers today korz@cs.columbia.edu (1993-02-22) |
Re: Effectiveness of compilers today henry@zoo.toronto.edu (1993-02-24) |
Re: Effectiveness of compilers today lindsay+@cs.cmu.edu (1993-03-02) |
[1 later articles] |
Newsgroups: | comp.compilers |
From: | pardo@cs.washington.edu (David Keppel) |
Keywords: | optimize |
Organization: | Computer Science & Engineering, U. of Washington, Seattle |
References: | 93-02-082 93-02-095 |
Date: | Fri, 19 Feb 1993 04:51:43 GMT |
jbuck@forney.berkeley.edu (Joe Buck) writes:
>Superoptimizer uses exhaustive search and is thus exponential.
preston@dawn.cs.rice.edu (Preston Briggs) writes:
>In defense, I'll point out that it is used at compiler-generation time
>[thus it can crunch for a week w/o affecting compile time.]
The original Superoptmizer was available for the compiler writer, the
compiler, and the programmer. As I recall, Henry told me the biggest
thing he'd ever tried with it was about 20 instructions and that took a
couple weeks (an Othello move generator; substantial speedup). Henry also
used the Superoptimizer technique on longer sequences by Superoptimizing
windows of a few instructions, then moving the window. As I recall, the
first pass would be run with a small window and would go fast; then the
window size would be increased once the ``obvious'' sequences were removed
by the first pass; and so on. That way, Superoptimizer (which never
considered longer sequences) would only run with the large window when the
code in question was already reasonably tight.
;-D on ( Sequence-ial logic ) Pardo
--
Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.