From: Stefan Monnier <monnier+comp/compilers/news/@tequila.cs.yale.edu>
Subject: Re: Compiler Optimisation?
Date: 1998/12/18
Date: 1998-12-18T00:00:00+00:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <98-12-034@comp.compilers> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 98-12-024@comp.compilers
>>>>> "dewarr" == dewarr <dewarr@my-dejanews.com> writes:
> This is misleading. Many compilers do MUCH more extensive
> peephole optimization. In particular gcc gets a FAR more
> significant improvement from peephole optimization.
This often reflects the fact that optimisations interact and that they
are often designed based on their interactions. In the SML/NJ example
mentioned by someone else, the `contraction' phase is relied upon by
many other optimisations (which end up just restructuring the code,
which in a first step makes it bigger and slower but exposes further
opportunities to the contraction phase).
Stefan
next prev parent reply other threads:[~1998-12-18 0:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
1998-12-06 0:00 Compiler Optimisation? Iain Bate
1998-12-07 0:00 ` Marin David Condic
1998-12-10 0:00 ` Thomas W. Christopher
1998-12-13 0:00 ` Mike Albaugh
1998-12-13 0:00 ` John F Carr
1998-12-10 0:00 ` Ray Dillinger
1998-12-13 0:00 ` dewarr
1998-12-18 0:00 ` Ray Dillinger
1998-12-18 0:00 ` Stefan Monnier [this message]
1998-12-13 0:00 ` Andy Gaynor
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox