low level optimization
Wayne Throop
throopw at sheol.UUCP
Tue Apr 30 11:08:38 AEST 1991
> jlg at cochiti.lanl.gov (Jim Giles)
> In NO present implementation that does IM analysis
> is the method standard conforming.
To quote Inigo Montoya: "You keep using that word. I do not
think it means what you think it means."
In fact an implementation that uses inter-module analysis to get
superior optimization of cases that can be proven non-aliased may very
well be standard conforming. Certainly the inter-module optimizations
of the MIPS C compiler aren't what (if anything) keep it from being
standard conforming.
In just what way are inter-module optimizations supposed to extend or
violate the standard? As far as I can tell, they do neither.
( Note that these inter-module optimizations can be performed within
the usual capabilities of current Unix .o and .a file formats, at the
cost of a tradeoff in multiple, differently-optimized translations
output from the compile phase. In much the same way as the inter-module
type checking is done within this restriction by C++.
Not that there aren't better ways available if you allow the
introduction of a better intermediate form. It's just that this
conservative approach (while not totally satisfactory), would work
and yield 99 and 44/100ths percent of the benefits Jim is looking for. )
--
Wayne Throop ...!mcnc!dg-rtp!sheol!throopw
More information about the Comp.lang.c
mailing list