Re: Data Structure Reorganizing Optimizations

johnm@cory.EECS.Berkeley.EDU (John D. Mitchell)
Sat, 22 Oct 1994 17:12:31 GMT

          From comp.compilers

Related articles
CProf cache profiling system available david@cs.wisc.edu (1994-10-13)
Data Structure Reorganizing Optimizations [Was: Re: CProf cache profil glew@ichips.intel.com (1994-10-19)
Re: Data Structure Reorganizing Optimizations john@iastate.edu (1994-10-22)
Re: Data Structure Reorganizing Optimizations robertb@HING.LCS.MIT.EDU (1994-10-26)
Re: Data Structure Reorganizing Optimizations johnm@cory.EECS.Berkeley.EDU (1994-10-22)
Re: Data Structure Reorganizing Optimizations stripes@uunet.uu.net (1994-10-27)
Re: Data Structure Reorganizing Optimizations bret@icicle.winternet.com (1994-10-23)
Data Structure Reorganizing Optimizations leichter@zodiac.rutgers.edu (1994-10-31)
Re: Data Structure Reorganizing Optimizations yuri@shimari.cmf.nrl.navy.mil (1994-10-31)
Re: Data Structure Reorganizing Optimizations ddg@cci.com (1994-10-31)
Re: Data Structure Reorganizing Optimizations amos@nsof.co.il (1994-11-01)
[16 later articles]
| List of all articles for this month |
Newsgroups: comp.arch,comp.compilers
From: johnm@cory.EECS.Berkeley.EDU (John D. Mitchell)
Followup-To: comp.std.c
Keywords: optimize, C, standards
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
References: 94-10-108 94-10-141
Date: Sat, 22 Oct 1994 17:12:31 GMT

Andy Glew <glew@ichips.intel.com> wrote:
>I'd like to start a discussion of why such data structure
>reorganization optimizations should still be illegal.
^^^^^^^
I believe you mean 'legal' here instead. :-)




[...]
>I believe that C's rules about data structure organization are
>obsolete. Certainly, they are not in the ken of the usual programmer
>using C or C++. Why not permit compilers to do such "illegal" data
>structure reorganizations, bringing the performance gains Lebeck and
>Wood describes to the standard application?


This would be cool and would make a difference on many machines. It would
also break tons and tons of code that relies on the old constraints and
that was one of the biggest rules that the X3J11 committee lived by (and
we're all much better for it (look at the C++ committee and the hell that
they are creating)).




>I suggest that this be considered by future X3J11 ANSI C standards (if
>any such revisions are forthcoming).


This C 'standards' disucussion should be moved to comp.std.c...


Take care,
John
--


Post a followup to this message

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