From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] Rant (was Re: Plan9 and Ada95?)
From: nigel@9fs.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
	boundary="upas-obbzxlwibwqpgqmzizqgcntugs"
Message-Id: <20011108120512.E86D8199BB@mail.cse.psu.edu>
Date: Thu,  8 Nov 2001 12:05:10 +0000
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 19d07dac-eaca-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--upas-obbzxlwibwqpgqmzizqgcntugs
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

>> Has anyone compared the efficiency of the code produced by GCC and the
>> Plan 9 compiler?

I'm not sure that this is a very important issue, whichever is better.

If the Plan 9 C compiler produced better code, would that immediately
causes the free-nix community to change compiler? Of course not, there
are many considerations other than efficiency.

The answer is that gcc is probably/possibly/allegedly more efficient,
but not by a substantial degree.

So, lets say the code is X% faster, and even X% smaller.  How does
this help?  If the code you want to run is within X% of catastrophe,
then squeezing the code with the aid of a compiler is not the only
solution.  Throwing away a lot of the code is quite a good one too.

And, before I get flamed that this is not a commercially minded
answer, a substantial part of my employ has been spent building small
embedded systems.  When the code didn't fit, we invariably played with
the compiler, decided it didn't help enough, and then started removing
code.

What value of X makes changing compiler worthwhile?


--upas-obbzxlwibwqpgqmzizqgcntugs
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Disposition: inline

Received: from mail.cse.psu.edu ([130.203.4.6]) by cpu; Thu Nov  8 10:52:46 GMT 2001
Received: from psuvax1.cse.psu.edu (psuvax1.cse.psu.edu [130.203.20.6])
	by mail.cse.psu.edu (CSE Mail Server) with ESMTP
	id 49E0619A33; Thu,  8 Nov 2001 05:50:19 -0500 (EST)
Delivered-To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Received: from mercury.bath.ac.uk (mercury.bath.ac.uk [138.38.32.81])
	by mail.cse.psu.edu (CSE Mail Server) with ESMTP id 96E8119A2B
	for <9fans@cse.psu.edu>; Thu,  8 Nov 2001 05:48:08 -0500 (EST)
Received: from news by mercury.bath.ac.uk with local (Exim 3.12 #1)
	id 161mbf-0002hy-00
	for 9fans@cse.psu.edu; Thu, 08 Nov 2001 10:40:23 +0000
Received: from GATEWAY by bath.ac.uk with netnews
	for 9fans@cse.psu.edu (9fans@cse.psu.edu)
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
From: "Thomas Bushnell, BSG" <tb+usenet@becket.net>
Message-ID: <87g07pya0g.fsf@becket.becket.net>
Organization: University of California, Irvine
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
References: <20011108064602.DE027199BB@mail.cse.psu.edu>
Subject: Re: [9fans] Rant (was Re: Plan9 and Ada95?)
Sender: 9fans-admin@cse.psu.edu
Errors-To: 9fans-admin@cse.psu.edu
X-BeenThere: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.6
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
List-Id: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans.cse.psu.edu>
List-Archive: <http://lists.cse.psu.edu/archives/9fans/>
Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2001 10:39:58 GMT


Has anyone compared the efficiency of the code produced by GCC and the
Plan 9 compiler?
--upas-obbzxlwibwqpgqmzizqgcntugs--