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=0.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_05,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: fac41,c52c30d32b866eae X-Google-Attributes: gidfac41,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,2ea02452876a15e1 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,c52c30d32b866eae X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public From: tynor@atlanta.twr.com (Steve Tynor) Subject: Re: Real OO Date: 1996/04/04 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 145812822 sender: tynor@atlanta.twr.com (Steve Tynor) references: <65lDeVZF3RB@herold.franken.de> organization: Tower Technology newsgroups: comp.lang.eiffel,comp.lang.ada,comp.object Date: 1996-04-04T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article donh@syd.csa.com.au (Don Harrison) writes: | where | - %_opt is the percentage of dynamic calls that are optimised into | static calls .. | Are any Eiifel vendors willing to offer values for %_opt? This, of course, is highly dependent on the particular system being compiled. The TowerEiffel optimizer prints this value out during its optimization phase. (actually it prints the percentage of calls that remain dynamic - so it's the inverse of your %_opt). I typically see values in the 10-20% range. That means 80-90% of calls are optimized to static calls (and without requiring the programmer to cripple the reusability of his classes by "freezing" their features). As you suggest, it's a valuable optimization technique. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Eiffel: Accept no substitutes. Steve Tynor Internet: Steve.Tynor@atlanta.twr.com Tower Technology WWW: http://www.twr.com/