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: | 2005-02-25 (17:42) |
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