Re: Speedy compilers

"Jeff Jackson" <jeff-news@jeff-jackson.com>
18 Dec 1998 12:20:44 -0500

          From comp.compilers

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)
| List of all articles for this month |

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



Post a followup to this message

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