From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_05,HEADER_SPAM,
	INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,32898cca6ca4143e
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Thread: ff499,32898cca6ca4143e
X-Google-Attributes: gidff499,public
From: dewarr@my-dejanews.com
Subject: Re: Compiler Optimisation?
Date: 1998/12/13
Message-ID: <98-12-024@comp.compilers>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 421863383
Sender: johnl@iecc.com
References: <98-12-010@comp.compilers> <98-12-016@comp.compilers>
X-submission-address: compilers@iecc.com
X-moderator-address: compilers-request@iecc.com
Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion
Keywords: optimize
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.compilers
X-FAQ-and-archives: http://www.iecc.com/compilers
Date: 1998-12-13T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

  Ray Dillinger <bear@sonic.net> wrote:
> The speed-up due to the peephole stage in my experience runs between
> ten and twenty percent of overall speed -- Although, of course, it
> depends on what you put into the "peephole" stage. ...

This is misleading. Many compilers do MUCH more extensive
peephole optimization. In particular gcc gets a FAR more
significant improvement from peephole optimization.