Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.
| Related articles |
|---|
| [10 earlier articles] |
| Re: Speedy compilers amitp@theory.stanford.edu (Amit Patel) (1998-12-10) |
| Re: Speedy compilers mfinney@lynchburg.net (1998-12-13) |
| Re: Speedy compilers eclectictech@usa.net (1998-12-18) |
| Re: Speedy compilers zalman@netcom.com (1998-12-18) |
| Re: Speedy compilers Rudi.Ziegaus@bingo.baynet.de (1998-12-18) |
| Re: Speedy compilers Rudi.Ziegaus@bingo.baynet.de (1998-12-18) |
| Re: Speedy compilers jeff-news@jeff-jackson.com (Jeff Jackson) (1998-12-18) |
| Re: Speedy compilers albaugh@agames.com (1998-12-19) |
| Re: Speedy compilers terryg@uswest.net (1998-12-19) |
| Re: Speedy compilers genew@vip.net (1998-12-19) |
| Re: Speedy compilers fjh@cs.mu.OZ.AU (1998-12-19) |
| Re: Speedy compilers rweaver@ix.netcom.com (1998-12-19) |
| Re: Speedy compilers zalman@netcom.com (1998-12-19) |
| From: | "Jeff Jackson" <jeff-news@jeff-jackson.com> |
| Newsgroups: | comp.compilers |
| Date: | 18 Dec 1998 12:20:44 -0500 |
| Organization: | MindSpring Enterprises |
| References: | 98-11-047 98-11-086 98-11-089 98-11-109 |
| Keywords: | optimize |
> After we found all shortcomings in the sub-array-size computation,
> loop invariant code motion and induction variable
> reduction/elimination, the compile time dropped to 36 seconds. The
> reason ? The subsequent optimisation passes had far fewer insn's to
> worry about :-)
I have a similar story to tell. I did a complete rewrite of the peephole
optimizer of a compiler at what was then the Harris Computer Systems
Division. The peephole optimizer deleted enough code that there
was a net decrease in compile time. So, even at "Minimal" optimization,
we ran peephole.
--
><> Jeffrey Glen Jackson http://www.jeff-jackson.com
Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.