Browse thread
[Benchmark] NBody
[
Home
]
[ Index:
by date
|
by threads
]
[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
| Date: | -- (:) |
| From: | Oliver Bandel <oliver@f...> |
| Subject: | Re: [Caml-list] NBody (one more question) |
On Fri, Feb 25, 2005 at 09:24:19AM -0800, Ken Rose wrote:
[...]
> I'm not familiar with the OCaml code generator, but gcc without
> optimization produces very naive code. Each source statement is
> translated separately, and all variable values are read from & written
> back to memory. (Only changed values are written, obviously) It
> doesn't do any instruction scheduling beyond what the processor may
> require for correctness. It really doesn't do anything more
> sophisticated than suppressing moves that have the same register as
> source & destination.
[...]
There is a good reason that without optimisations
there will be done none.
1.: It's what it seems to be. And switching optimisation on then
is also what it seems to be: optimized code...
So, a chair is a chair and a table is a table and that's good. :)
2.: Optimisation must be switched off to be able to debug...
...so it's good that gcc has the capability to produce non-
optimized code.... it's not stupid to produce naive code.
It sometimes is very useful.
Ciao,
Oliver