From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 13:26:19 -0500
From: William Josephson <nospmjkw@eecs.harvard.edu>
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] how to avoid a memset() optimization
Message-ID: <20021114182619.GA48628@mero.morphisms.net>
References: <Pine.SOL.3.96.1021114130542.22864A-100000@robin.cooper.edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SOL.3.96.1021114130542.22864A-100000@robin.cooper.edu>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 2042ca2c-eacb-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025

On Thu, Nov 14, 2002 at 01:11:17PM -0500, Joel Salomon wrote:
> > Anyone have any numbers showing that, "without optimizations,
> > this simply wouldn't be tolerable," in the face of well
> > written code?
> I believe this is the case with the IA-64 architecture. I don't have any
> experience writing compilers, but I would imagine that compile-time
> concurrency analysis (necessary for *decent* performance on IA-64)
> requires very clever optimizers.

I certainly haven't heard anything kind from
compiler writers about IA-64.

> Come to think of it, I don't believe that plan9's comilers have been
> ported to IA-64 - is this the reason?

I would guess that it has more to do with
the fact that no one actually uses IA64.
Porting the compilers is a lot of work if
you aren't going to use them :-)