[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: C++
From: |
Sam Mason |
Subject: |
Re: C++ |
Date: |
Mon, 9 Nov 2009 16:32:46 +0000 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) |
On Mon, Nov 09, 2009 at 08:08:10AM -0800, Jonathan S. Shapiro wrote:
> - front end validates the code, generates high-level IL, does
> high-level optimization.
> - linker accepts IL, does optimizing code generation.
Fun! Link times would be even more of a problem then, Google's linker
"gold" was about helping with this a bit (five times?) but if you move
optimization into the linker this is going to get much slower again.
> The interesting challenge in this approach is dealing with library
> interface boundaries. And as you point out, it's not really clear at
> this point that the compile system should treat those as a boundary at
> all.
Explicit control could be nice here; it would also provide a way to
solve the above. User specified optimization boundaries would turn the
above into a divide and conquer type solution and put things back in
control of the user.
--
Sam http://samason.me.uk/
- Re: C++, olafBuddenhagen, 2009/11/03
- Re: C++, William Leslie, 2009/11/04
- Re: C++, Jonathan S. Shapiro, 2009/11/04
- Re: C++, Bas Wijnen, 2009/11/05
- Re: C++, olafBuddenhagen, 2009/11/08
- Re: C++, Bas Wijnen, 2009/11/09
- Re: C++, William Leslie, 2009/11/09
- Re: C++, Michal Suchanek, 2009/11/09
- Re: C++, Bas Wijnen, 2009/11/09
- Re: C++, Jonathan S. Shapiro, 2009/11/09
- Re: C++,
Sam Mason <=
- Re: C++, Jonathan S. Shapiro, 2009/11/09
- Re: C++, Sam Mason, 2009/11/09
- Re: C++, LluĂs, 2009/11/11
- Re: C++, Jonathan S. Shapiro, 2009/11/09
- Re: C++, olafBuddenhagen, 2009/11/10