Re: lcc intel backend? compile time?

pardo@cs.washington.edu (David Keppel)
Wed, 20 Oct 1993 02:44:02 GMT

          From comp.compilers
Related articles
lcc intel backend? nick@nsis.cl.nec.co.jp (1993-10-07)
Re: lcc intel backend? compile time? rds95@csc.albany.edu (1993-10-13)
Re: lcc intel backend? compile time? graham@pact.srf.ac.uk (1993-10-13)
Re: lcc intel backend? compile time? cliffc@rice.edu (1993-10-13)
Re: lcc intel backend? compile time? rds95@csc.albany.edu (1993-10-13)
Re: lcc intel backend? compile time? pardo@cs.washington.edu (1993-10-20)
Re: lcc intel backend? compile time? henry@zoo.toronto.edu (1993-10-20)
Re: lcc intel backend? compile time? tchannon@black.demon.co.uk (1993-10-21)
Re: lcc intel backend? compile time? henry@zoo.toronto.edu (1993-10-22)
| List of all articles for this month |
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
From: pardo@cs.washington.edu (David Keppel)
Keywords: C, performance
Organization: Computer Science & Engineering, U. of Washington, Seattle
References: 93-10-041 93-10-066
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1993 02:44:02 GMT

>(Gavin Thomas Nicol) writes:
>>[Fast compilers increase programmer productivity.]


>rds95@csc.albany.edu (Robert Seals) writes:
>>[This is conventional wisdom; I've never had compile-time problems.]


cliffc@rice.edu (Cliff Click) writes:
>[When compile/link times fall from 5 seconds to 0.5 sec., there
> is a "quantum" leap in productivity (warning: small sample size!)]


There is a story, perhaps apocryphal, that by substantially
*increasing* the compile times, you can also increase productivity,
since people take far more care with their changes and thus go through
many fewer compile/edit/debug (:-) cycles.


Human factors and all that. Mind you that I'm not advocating slower
compilers!


;-D on ( Lil' Abner's "Hooman Fact Tours" Engineering ) Pardo
--

Post a followup to this message

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