Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.
| Related articles |
|---|
| [5 earlier articles] |
| Re: Why C is much slower than Fortran terryg@uswest.net (1999-05-16) |
| Re: Why C is much slower than Fortran gneuner@dyn.com (1999-05-16) |
| Re: Why C is much slower than Fortran reid@micro.ti.com (Reid Tatge) (1999-05-20) |
| Re: Why C is much slower than Fortran jhallen@world.std.com (1999-05-29) |
| Re: Why C is much slower than Fortran hwstock@wizard.com (H.W. Stockman) (1999-06-02) |
| Re: Why C is much slower than Fortran erik@arbat.com (Erik Corry) (1999-06-02) |
| Re: Why C is much slower than Fortran lindahl@pbm.com (1999-06-02) |
| Re: Why C is much slower than Fortran sokal@holyrood.ed.ac.uk (Daniel Barker) (1999-06-02) |
| Re: Why C is much slower than Fortran djb@koobera.math.uic.edu (1999-06-02) |
| Re: Why C is much slower than Fortran Peter.Mayne@compaq.com (Peter Mayne) (1999-06-03) |
| Re: Why C is much slower than Fortran lindahl@pbm.com (1999-06-06) |
| Re: Why C is much slower than Fortran john@iastate.edu (1999-06-12) |
| Re: Why C is much slower than Fortran erik@arbat.com (Erik Corry) (1999-06-14) |
| [1 later articles] |
| From: | lindahl@pbm.com (Greg Lindahl) |
| Newsgroups: | comp.lang.c++,comp.compilers,comp.arch |
| Date: | 2 Jun 1999 01:34:20 -0400 |
| Organization: | a guest of Shadow Island Games |
| References: | 99-05-142 |
| Keywords: | architecture, performance |
jhallen@world.std.com (Joseph H Allen) writes:
> But what would be the speedup from this fix? If it's the same 50% to
> 100% speedup you get with using Fortran instead of C, I'd say that the
> extra hardware would be worth it.
You want to have everyone spend money on hardware that will never be
used? Right. I'd much rather have a software option to detect aliasing
mistakes. Aliasing mistakes are much less common than bounds mistakes;
how many hardware architectures have hardware bounds checking?
-- g
Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.