Re: WANTED: Rating of common optimization routines.

jgj@ssd.hcsc.com (Jeff Jackson)
16 Jan 1996 13:50:28 -0500

          From comp.compilers

Related articles
WANTED: Rating of common optimization routines. napi@ms.mimos.my (1996-01-12)
Re: WANTED: Rating of common optimization routines. dlmoore@ix.netcom.com (1996-01-13)
Re: WANTED: Rating of common optimization routines. cliffc@ami.sps.mot.com (1996-01-15)
Re: WANTED: Rating of common optimization routines. bill@amber.ssd.hcsc.com (1996-01-15)
Re: WANTED: Rating of common optimization routines. jgj@ssd.hcsc.com (1996-01-16)
Re: WANTED: Rating of common optimization routines. rubin@scrugs.amt.tay1.dec.com (1996-01-17)
| List of all articles for this month |
From: jgj@ssd.hcsc.com (Jeff Jackson)
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: 16 Jan 1996 13:50:28 -0500
Organization: I would rather be windsurfing.
References: 96-01-010 96-01-025 96-01-031
Keywords: optimize

> Beyond that, optimizations often become interrelated in many
> compilers. For instance, some optimizers will perform strength
> reduction in a way that relies on copy propagation and dead code
> elimination to "clean up" afterwards. That makes it hard to tell how
> much the optimizations contribute individually.


Or they can interfere with each other. Two different packings of
registers might be equally good by themselves, but one of them may
enable instruction scheduling to do wonderful things and the other may
cause so many write-after-read dependencies that instruction
scheduling is useless.
--
Jeffrey Glen Jackson
jgj@ssd.csd.harris.com
x5483
--


Post a followup to this message

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