Re: Folk Theorem: Assemblers are superior to Compilers

rfg@netcom.com (Ronald F. Guilmette)
Sat, 30 Oct 1993 04:57:07 GMT

          From comp.compilers

Related articles
[15 earlier articles]
Re: Folk Theorem: Assemblers are superior to Compilers raymondc@microsoft.com (1993-10-28)
Re: Folk Theorem: Assemblers are superior to Compilers adk@sun13.SCRI.FSU.EDU (1993-10-29)
Re: Folk Theorem: Assemblers are superior to Compilers elliottm@csulb.edu (1993-10-29)
Re: Folk Theorem: Assemblers are superior to Compilers jvn@fermi.clas.virginia.edu (Julian V. Noble) (1993-10-29)
Re: Folk Theorem: Assemblers are superior to Compilers Freek.Wiedijk@phil.ruu.nl (1993-10-29)
Re: Folk Theorem: Assemblers are superior to Compilers synaptx!thymus!daveg@uunet.UU.NET (Dave Gillespie) (1993-10-29)
Re: Folk Theorem: Assemblers are superior to Compilers rfg@netcom.com (1993-10-30)
Re: Folk Theorem: Assemblers are superior to Compilers qualtrak@netcom.com (1993-10-30)
Re: Folk Theorem: Assemblers are superior to Compilers johnson@cs.uiuc.edu (1993-10-31)
Re: Folk Theorem: Assemblers are superior to Compilers henry@zoo.toronto.edu (1993-10-31)
Re: Folk Theorem: Assemblers are superior to Compilers drraymon@watdragon.uwaterloo.ca (1993-11-01)
Re: Folk Theorem: Assemblers are superior to Compilers dmr@alice.att.com (1993-11-02)
Re: Folk Theorem: Assemblers are superior to Compilers steven.parker@acadiau.ca (1993-11-02)
[6 later articles]
| List of all articles for this month |
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
From: rfg@netcom.com (Ronald F. Guilmette)
Keywords: assembler, optimize, performance
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services
References: 93-10-114 93-10-123
Date: Sat, 30 Oct 1993 04:57:07 GMT

macrakis@osf.org (Stavros Macrakis) writes:
>The main reason code is big and slow is that there is little pressure to
>make it small and fast. There is much more pressure to add new features,
>to support more device types, and to do that as soon as possible...


I have some vague hope that (when it comes to compilers) we may perhaps
not be getting the absolute best code generation we can for the simple
reason that responsible compiler vendors are doing their level best to
work on the *correctness* of their compilers first, and placing a somewhat
lower priority of all of the whiz-bang optimizations that we all know and
love.


(Who was it that said that you can compute incorrect results infinitely
fast?)
-- Ronald F. Guilmette ------------------------------------------------------
------ domain address: rfg@netcom.com ---------------------------------------
------ uucp address: ...!uunet!netcom.com!rfg -------------------------------
--


Post a followup to this message

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