9fans - fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Mike Haertel <mike@ducky.net>
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] compilers - was GUI toolkit for Plan 9
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 16:21:00 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <200202270021.g1R0L0s43681@ducky.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20020226213451.56e87b33.matt@proweb.co.uk>

>Okay, I'm no compiler writer or even very proficient C coder but all this
>talk of turning optimizations off concerns me. Not because of the threat
>of "badly" generated code but because the chip makers (well Intel is the
>only one I really read about) are pushing the responsibility for
>optimization out of the silicon and into the compiler. (providing I
>understand what I read!)

Intel will live to regret this.  It's one thing to design a processor
that provides support for numerous compiler optimizations; it's quite
another to design a processor that *requires* them *all* to get even
adequate performance on a broad spectrum of code.

Anybody want to port 8c and Plan 9 to the Itanium?

(Ok, you can all stop laughing...)

The idea that "hardware/software co-design" is Good has to rank
among the great fallacies of computer science and the computing
industry in the last two decades.  It may allow elegant solutions
to isolated problems, but problems are never isolated.  Eventually
either the hardware or the software will need to be replaced, and
the more cross-dependencies there are the harder this will be.
Economically it's also really stupid: you are limiting your customers
to the *intersection* of those who like your hardware and those who
like your software.

However they might curse the oddities of the x86 ISA, I am sure the
Plan 9 developers are grateful for the fact that all x86 implementations
are designed with a goal of getting at least adeqaute performance
without recompiling.


  parent reply	other threads:[~2002-02-27  0:21 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 23+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2002-02-26 20:28 [9fans] " presotto
2002-02-26 21:34 ` [9fans] compilers - was " Matt H
2002-02-26 22:06   ` Theo Honohan
2002-02-27  0:21   ` Mike Haertel [this message]
2002-02-28 15:11     ` AMSRL-CI-CN
2002-02-28 16:55       ` Thomas Bushnell, BSG
2002-02-27  6:54 ` [9fans] " Eric Dorman
2002-02-27 10:20   ` Thomas Bushnell, BSG
2002-02-27 10:51     ` Lucio De Re
2002-02-27 13:27       ` Boyd Roberts
2002-02-27 14:20       ` Ish Rattan
2002-02-27 22:44       ` Thomas Bushnell, BSG
2002-02-28  4:41         ` Lucio De Re
2002-02-28 10:19           ` Thomas Bushnell, BSG
2002-02-28 10:14       ` Thomas Bushnell, BSG
2002-02-28 10:49         ` Matt H
2002-03-01 13:25           ` chad
2002-02-28  3:26     ` [9fans] GUI toolkit for Plan 9 [really GPL again!] Eric Dorman
2002-02-28  9:57     ` [9fans] GUI toolkit for Plan 9 ozan s yigit
2002-02-28 14:55 ` AMSRL-CI-CN
2002-02-26 22:17 [9fans] compilers - was " jmk
2002-02-27  2:38 Russ Cox
2002-02-27  9:28 Bengt Kleberg

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=200202270021.g1R0L0s43681@ducky.net \
    --to=mike@ducky.net \
    --cc=9fans@cse.psu.edu \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).