Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.
| Related articles |
|---|
| Compiler Optimisation? iain.bate@cs.york.ac.uk (Iain Bate) (1998-12-06) |
| Re: Compiler Optimisation? bear@sonic.net (Ray Dillinger) (1998-12-10) |
| Re: Compiler Optimisation? tc@charlie.cns.iit.edu (Thomas W. Christopher) (1998-12-10) |
| Re: Compiler Optimisation? silver@mail.webspan.net (Andy Gaynor) (1998-12-13) |
| Re: Compiler Optimisation? dewarr@my-dejanews.com (1998-12-13) |
| Re: Compiler Optimisation? albaugh@agames.com (1998-12-13) |
| Re: Compiler Optimisation? jfc@mit.edu (1998-12-13) |
| Re: Compiler Optimisation? monnier+comp/compilers/news/@tequila.cs.yale.edu (Stefan Monnier) (1998-12-18) |
| Re: Compiler Optimisation? bear@sonic.net (Ray Dillinger) (1998-12-18) |
| From: | jfc@mit.edu (John F Carr) |
| Newsgroups: | comp.lang.ada,comp.compilers |
| Date: | 13 Dec 1998 13:58:17 -0500 |
| Organization: | Massachvsetts Institvte of Technology |
| References: | 98-12-010 98-12-020 |
| Keywords: | optimize |
Thomas W. Christopher <tc@charlie.cns.iit.edu> wrote:
>As I recall, he found that "folding," performing constant arithmetic at
>compile time, not only makes the compiled code run faster, but also the
>compiler.
On AIX 3.1, I found that "gcc -O -c" was often faster than "gcc -c"
because the assembler was so slow. Apparently IBM didn't use it much
internally (or adb, the assembly-level debugger which was also slow
and buggy). It was faster for gcc to optimize the code than it was
for as to process the extra instructions in unoptimized code.
--
John Carr (jfc@mit.edu)
Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.