Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.
| Related articles |
|---|
| Re: failure due to compiler? kanze@lts.sel.alcatel.de (1996-07-04) |
| failure due to compiler? flake@elda.demon.co.uk (1996-07-09) |
| Re: failure due to compiler? dennis@netcom.com (1996-07-10) |
| Re: failure due to compiler? bobduff@world.std.com (1996-07-13) |
| Re: failure due to compiler? dave_sc@csl.sri.com (1996-07-15) |
| Re: Using PL/I efficiently rav@cs.rmit.edu.au (1996-08-09) |
| From: | rav@cs.rmit.edu.au (++ robin) |
| Newsgroups: | comp.lang.pl1,comp.compilers |
| Date: | 9 Aug 1996 14:11:58 -0400 |
| Organization: | Comp Sci, RMIT, Melbourne, Australia |
| Expires: | 1 November 1996 00:00:00 GMT |
| References: | 96-07-041 96-07-056 96-07-064 96-07-079 96-07-100 <96-07-123 |
| Keywords: | PL/I, performance |
>(Declaring a bit string ALIGNED meant operations on it were done inline
>instead of by subroutine call -- about a 15-1 performance improvement as I
>recall.)
>Not particularly interesting, until we started considering that during IBM's
>compiler development -- all of alpha testing -- all of beta testing -- and
>*a year of release* -- no one had considered it worth while to declare any
>bit strings ALIGNED.
---Not entirely surprising. Another common one is to
specify full optimization OPTIMIZE(TIME), but to omit
to specify REORDER for the program.
---Without REORDER specified, the compiler is not usually able
to perform best optimization, typically of the type where
code can be shifted outside loops!
--
Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.