Browse thread
compiler bug?
[
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: | Xavier Leroy <Xavier.Leroy@i...> |
| Subject: | Re: [Caml-list] compiler bug? |
>> Well, there is the paper by George and Appel where they use an ILP >> solver (integer linear programming) to produce optimal spills, but >> that's kind of expensive... > > It is my impression that users of compilers are "ready" for the > following situation: > 1) an optimizing compiler (like ocamlopt!) that produces good code > efficiently > 2) a super-optimizing compiler that produces fantastic code, at whatever > cost. Clearly, you're not the guy who would have to support both compilers :-) More seriously, I agree that optional "super-optimization" passes could be useful in some cases. Actually, George and Appel found that compilation times with their approach were almost reasonable (e.g. a few minutes instead of a few seconds for a standard compiler), but they had to use a commercial ILP solver. If only there were *really good* ILP and SAT solvers under free licenses... - Xavier Leroy