Related articles |
---|
optimization using profiling iyossi@my-dejanews.com (1998-11-12) |
Re: optimization using profiling mikey@ontek.com (1998-11-15) |
Re: optimization using profiling jrw@pobox.com (John Williams) (1998-11-15) |
Re: optimization using profiling joachim.durchholz@munich.netsurf.de (Joachim Durchholz) (1998-11-15) |
From: | mikey@ontek.com (Mike Lee) |
Newsgroups: | comp.compilers |
Date: | 15 Nov 1998 13:29:04 -0500 |
Organization: | Ontek Corporation -- Laguna Hills, California |
References: | 98-11-078 |
Keywords: | optimize |
In comp.compilers, iyossi@my-dejanews.com writes:
|
| How? What can be done after profiling that can't be done without it ?
| To get a real improvement, I guess I must run my application to cover
| ALL the possibilities (all branches in code), or I'll get worse
| performance, since the compiler will think that some code is never or
| almost never being executed, right?
My impression is that 90% of the value of profile feedback
optimization is in deciding which branch of an if-statement
or switch-statement to favor when making trade-offs in the
ordering of the object code. You mentioned it was a C++
compiler so it could be using the profile information for
inlining decisions also.
I agree with the moderator, you don't have to cover every
branch--so long as the hotspots get some profiling
attention, the optimizer should have enough information to
go on. If the hotspot isn't getting covered very well,
then it de facto isn't a hotspot after all.
Of course, read the profiler output yourself to draw your
attention to places in the code where algorithmic changes
may pay off more than micro-optimizations.
mikey
Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.