From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Delivered-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Received: from nez-perce.inria.fr (nez-perce.inria.fr [192.93.2.78]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 81467BC75 for ; Fri, 25 Feb 2005 18:42:23 +0100 (CET) Received: from pauillac.inria.fr (pauillac.inria.fr [128.93.11.35]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id j1PHgNoQ025454 for ; Fri, 25 Feb 2005 18:42:23 +0100 Received: from nez-perce.inria.fr (nez-perce.inria.fr [192.93.2.78]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id SAA20151 for ; Fri, 25 Feb 2005 18:42:22 +0100 (MET) Received: from first.in-berlin.de (dialin-212-144-120-226.arcor-ip.net [212.144.120.226]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id j1PHgLHt025444 for ; Fri, 25 Feb 2005 18:42:22 +0100 Received: by first.in-berlin.de (Postfix, from userid 501) id 0F6A8B02D6; Fri, 25 Feb 2005 18:42:21 +0100 (CET) Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2005 18:42:21 +0100 From: Oliver Bandel To: caml-list@inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] NBody (one more question) Message-ID: <20050225174221.GA1068@first.in-berlin.de> References: <20050207.195724.87945401.Christophe.Troestler@umh.ac.be> <20050208104312.GA10035@yquem.inria.fr> <20050224.231855.40627447.debian00@tiscali.be> <421F5F43.8050602@tfb.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <421F5F43.8050602@tfb.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6i X-Miltered: at nez-perce with ID 421F637F.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Miltered: at nez-perce with ID 421F637D.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; oliver:01 bandel:01 oliver:01 in-berlin:01 caml-list:01 wrote:01 ocaml:01 gcc:01 translated:01 suppressing:01 gcc:01 25,:98 ...:98 ...:98 ....:98 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.2 (2004-11-16) on yquem.inria.fr X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.1 required=5.0 tests=FORGED_RCVD_HELO autolearn=disabled version=3.0.2 X-Spam-Level: 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