Path: csiph.com!v102.xanadu-bbs.net!xanadu-bbs.net!news.glorb.com!news-out.readnews.com!news-xxxfer.readnews.com!news.misty.com!news.iecc.com!nerds-end From: "BartC" Newsgroups: comp.compilers Subject: Re: Good practical language and OS agnostic text? Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2012 12:01:55 +0100 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 21 Sender: news@iecc.com Approved: comp.compilers@iecc.com Message-ID: <12-04-058@comp.compilers> References: <12-04-019@comp.compilers> <12-04-023@comp.compilers> <12-04-033@comp.compilers> NNTP-Posting-Host: news.iecc.com X-Trace: leila.iecc.com 1335043069 22578 64.57.183.58 (21 Apr 2012 21:17:49 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@iecc.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2012 21:17:49 +0000 (UTC) Keywords: design, performance Posted-Date: 21 Apr 2012 17:17:49 EDT X-submission-address: compilers@iecc.com X-moderator-address: compilers-request@iecc.com X-FAQ-and-archives: http://compilers.iecc.com Xref: csiph.com comp.compilers:601 "Hans-Peter Diettrich" wrote in message > Life is too short for writing an full-blown heavily-optimizing > production compiler from scratch, including its whole RTL. Especially when there might only be difference of 2 or 3 times between performance of the best and worst code. My own compiler for x86-32 generates pretty awful code, and on a small handful of mostly numeric benchmarks, it averages out about 2.5 x as slow as gcc on it's highest optimisation setting. But, gcc often recognises these benchmarks as doing nothing useful, so removes whole sections of code! The true factor is probably between 1 and 2, and for critical code, I just use inline assembly code, so it's not real problem. I'm rewriting that compiler at the moment, and will probably achieve somewhat better performance, but don't worry about it too much. -- Bartc