Re: Baby X is bor nagain

Liste des GroupesRevenir à cl c 
Sujet : Re: Baby X is bor nagain
De : malcolm.arthur.mclean (at) *nospam* gmail.com (Malcolm McLean)
Groupes : comp.lang.c
Date : 17. Jun 2024, 17:48:36
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <v4plsk$nn9o$2@dont-email.me>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
On 17/06/2024 14:43, David Brown wrote:
On 17/06/2024 12:30, bart wrote:
On 17/06/2024 07:22, James Kuyper wrote:
On 6/13/24 10:43, Michael S wrote:
On Thu, 13 Jun 2024 13:53:54 +0200
David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
...
I know more than most C programmers about how certain C compilers
work, and what works well with them, and what is relevant for them -
though I certainly don't claim to know everything. Obviously Bart
knows vastly more about how /his/ compiler works. He also tends to
do testing with several small and odd C compilers, which can give
interesting results even though they are of little practical
relevance for real-world C development work.
>
>
Since he do compilers himself, he has much better feeling [that you
or me] of what is hard and what is easy, what is small and what is big,
what is fast and what is slow. That applies to all compilers except
those that are very unusual. "Major" compiler are not unusual at all.
>
The problem is that Bart's compiler is VERY unusual. It's customized for
his use, and he has lots of quirks in the way he thinks compilers should
work, which are very different from those of most other programmers.
>
>
In
particular, compilation speed is very important to him, while execution
speed is almost completely unimportant, which is pretty much the
opposite of the way most programmers prioritize those things.
>
Compilation speed is important to everyone. That's why so many tricks are used to get around the lack of speed in a big compiler, or so many extra resources are thrown at the problem.
 What "tricks" ?
 
>
Runtime performance is important too, but at this level of language, the difference between optimised and unoptimised code is narrow. Unoptimised may be between 1x and 2x slower, typically.
 That depends on the language, type of code, and target platform. Typical C code on an x86_64 platform might be two or three times slower when using a poorly optimising compiler.  After all, the designers of x86 cpus put a great deal of effort into making shitty code run fast. For high-performance code written with care and requiring fast results, the performance difference will be bigger.  For C++, especially code that makes good use of abstractions, the difference can be very much bigger.  For C code on an embedded ARM device or other microcontroller, it's not unusual to see a 5x speed improvement on optimised code.
 Speed is not the only good reason for picking C as the language for a task, but it is often a relevant factor.  And if it is a factor, then you will usually prefer faster speeds.
 
>
Perhaps slower on benchmarks, or code written in C++ style that generates lots of redundances that relies on optimisation to make it fast.
>
But, during developement, you probably wouldn't use optimisation anyway.
>
 I virtually always have optimisation enabled during development.  I might, when trying to chase down a specific bug, reduce some specific optimisations, but I have never seen the point of crippling a development tool when doing development work - it makes no sense at all.
 
I never do.
Until I had to give up work, I was making real time tools for artists. And if it didn't work in under just noticeable time on the debug build, it wouldn't be working in under just noticeable time on the release build, you could be pretty sure. So I never turned the release build on, but of course the downstream deployment team built it as release for delivery to customers. And that might mean that they could do 2000 paths instead of 1000 before the tool slowed to the point that it became unusable. So not a game changer. But not something to deprive a customer of either.
--
Check out my hobby project.
http://malcolmmclean.github.io/babyxrc

Date Sujet#  Auteur
11 Jun 24 * Baby X is bor nagain322Malcolm McLean
11 Jun 24 +* Re: Baby X is bor nagain3bart
11 Jun 24 i`* Re: Baby X is bor nagain2Malcolm McLean
12 Jun 24 i `- Mac users (Was: Baby X is bor nagain)1Kenny McCormack
11 Jun 24 +* Re: Baby X is bor nagain4Ben Bacarisse
11 Jun 24 i`* Re: Baby X is bor nagain3Malcolm McLean
12 Jun 24 i `* Re: Baby X is bor nagain2Ben Bacarisse
12 Jun 24 i  `- Re: Baby X is bor nagain1Malcolm McLean
11 Jun 24 +* Re: Baby X is bor nagain313Bonita Montero
11 Jun 24 i+* Re: Baby X is bor nagain309Malcolm McLean
12 Jun 24 ii`* Re: Baby X is bor nagain308Bonita Montero
12 Jun 24 ii +* Re: Baby X is bor nagain305David Brown
12 Jun 24 ii i+* Re: Baby X is bor nagain2Malcolm McLean
12 Jun 24 ii ii`- Re: Baby X is bor nagain1David Brown
12 Jun 24 ii i+- Re: Baby X is bor nagain1Bonita Montero
12 Jun 24 ii i`* Re: Baby X is bor nagain301bart
12 Jun 24 ii i +* Re: Baby X is bor nagain4Bonita Montero
12 Jun 24 ii i i`* Re: Baby X is bor nagain3bart
12 Jun 24 ii i i `* Re: Baby X is bor nagain2Bonita Montero
12 Jun 24 ii i i  `- Re: Baby X is bor nagain1bart
12 Jun 24 ii i `* Re: Baby X is bor nagain296David Brown
12 Jun 24 ii i  `* Re: Baby X is bor nagain295Michael S
13 Jun 24 ii i   +- Re: Baby X is bor nagain1Malcolm McLean
13 Jun 24 ii i   `* Re: Baby X is bor nagain293David Brown
13 Jun 24 ii i    +* Re: Baby X is bor nagain5bart
13 Jun 24 ii i    i+* Re: Baby X is bor nagain3tTh
13 Jun 24 ii i    ii`* Re: Baby X is bor nagain2bart
14 Jun 24 ii i    ii `- Re: Baby X is bor nagain1Bonita Montero
13 Jun 24 ii i    i`- Re: Baby X is bor nagain1Michael S
13 Jun 24 ii i    `* Re: Baby X is bor nagain287Michael S
14 Jun 24 ii i     +* Re: Baby X is bor nagain3David Brown
14 Jun 24 ii i     i`* Re: Baby X is bor nagain2bart
15 Jun 24 ii i     i `- Re: Baby X is bor nagain1David Brown
17 Jun 24 ii i     `* Re: Baby X is bor nagain283James Kuyper
17 Jun 24 ii i      +* Re: Baby X is bor nagain86Kaz Kylheku
17 Jun 24 ii i      i+- Are Javascript and Python similarly slow ? (Was: Baby X is bor nagain)1Michael S
17 Jun 24 ii i      i+* Re: Baby X is bor nagain2Michael S
18 Jun 24 ii i      ii`- Re: Baby X is bor nagain1Tim Rentsch
17 Jun 24 ii i      i+* Re: Baby X is bor nagain80David Brown
18 Jun 24 ii i      ii`* Re: Baby X is bor nagain79Michael S
18 Jun 24 ii i      ii `* Re: Baby X is bor nagain78David Brown
18 Jun 24 ii i      ii  +* Re: Baby X is bor nagain7bart
18 Jun 24 ii i      ii  i`* Re: Baby X is bor nagain6David Brown
18 Jun 24 ii i      ii  i +* Re: Baby X is bor nagain2bart
18 Jun 24 ii i      ii  i i`- Re: Baby X is bor nagain1David Brown
18 Jun 24 ii i      ii  i `* Re: Baby X is bor nagain3DFS
18 Jun 24 ii i      ii  i  `* Re: Baby X is bor nagain2Mark Bourne
18 Jun 24 ii i      ii  i   `- Re: Baby X is bor nagain1DFS
18 Jun 24 ii i      ii  +* Re: Baby X is bor nagain3Malcolm McLean
18 Jun 24 ii i      ii  i+- Re: Baby X is bor nagain1David Brown
18 Jun 24 ii i      ii  i`- Re: Baby X is bor nagain1Mark Bourne
18 Jun 24 ii i      ii  `* Re: Baby X is bor nagain67Michael S
18 Jun 24 ii i      ii   +* Re: Baby X is bor nagain65Malcolm McLean
19 Jun 24 ii i      ii   i+* Re: Baby X is bor nagain59Keith Thompson
19 Jun 24 ii i      ii   ii`* Re: Baby X is bor nagain58Malcolm McLean
19 Jun 24 ii i      ii   ii +* Re: Baby X is bor nagain56David Brown
19 Jun 24 ii i      ii   ii i`* Re: Baby X is bor nagain55Malcolm McLean
19 Jun 24 ii i      ii   ii i `* Re: Baby X is bor nagain54David Brown
19 Jun 24 ii i      ii   ii i  `* Re: Baby X is bor nagain53Malcolm McLean
19 Jun 24 ii i      ii   ii i   +* Re: Baby X is bor nagain10bart
20 Jun 24 ii i      ii   ii i   i`* Re: Baby X is bor nagain9David Brown
20 Jun 24 ii i      ii   ii i   i `* Re: Baby X is bor nagain8bart
20 Jun 24 ii i      ii   ii i   i  `* Re: Baby X is bor nagain7David Brown
20 Jun 24 ii i      ii   ii i   i   `* Re: Baby X is bor nagain6bart
20 Jun 24 ii i      ii   ii i   i    +* Re: Baby X is bor nagain2Michael S
20 Jun 24 ii i      ii   ii i   i    i`- Re: Baby X is bor nagain1bart
20 Jun 24 ii i      ii   ii i   i    `* Re: Baby X is bor nagain3David Brown
21 Jun 24 ii i      ii   ii i   i     `* Re: Baby X is bor nagain2bart
21 Jun 24 ii i      ii   ii i   i      `- Re: Baby X is bor nagain1David Brown
20 Jun 24 ii i      ii   ii i   `* Re: Baby X is bor nagain42David Brown
20 Jun 24 ii i      ii   ii i    `* Re: Baby X is bor nagain41Malcolm McLean
20 Jun 24 ii i      ii   ii i     +- Re: Baby X is bor nagain1David Brown
20 Jun 24 ii i      ii   ii i     `* Re: Baby X is bor nagain39Ben Bacarisse
20 Jun 24 ii i      ii   ii i      +* Re: Baby X is bor nagain2Malcolm McLean
20 Jun 24 ii i      ii   ii i      i`- Re: Baby X is bor nagain1Ben Bacarisse
20 Jun 24 ii i      ii   ii i      +* Re: Baby X is bor nagain9Tim Rentsch
20 Jun 24 ii i      ii   ii i      i`* Re: Baby X is bor nagain8Malcolm McLean
20 Jun 24 ii i      ii   ii i      i +* Re: Baby X is bor nagain2James Kuyper
20 Jun 24 ii i      ii   ii i      i i`- Re: Baby X is bor nagain1Keith Thompson
20 Jun 24 ii i      ii   ii i      i +- Re: Baby X is bor nagain1Vir Campestris
20 Jun 24 ii i      ii   ii i      i +* Re: Baby X is bor nagain2Keith Thompson
21 Jun 24 ii i      ii   ii i      i i`- Re: Baby X is bor nagain1vallor
21 Jun 24 ii i      ii   ii i      i +- Re: Baby X is bor nagain1Tim Rentsch
21 Jun 24 ii i      ii   ii i      i `- Re: Baby X is bor nagain1David Brown
20 Jun 24 ii i      ii   ii i      `* Re: Baby X is bor nagain27Keith Thompson
20 Jun 24 ii i      ii   ii i       `* Re: Baby X is bor nagain26Ben Bacarisse
20 Jun 24 ii i      ii   ii i        +* Re: Baby X is bor nagain2Michael S
21 Jun 24 ii i      ii   ii i        i`- Re: Baby X is bor nagain1Ben Bacarisse
20 Jun 24 ii i      ii   ii i        +- Re: Baby X is bor nagain1Keith Thompson
21 Jun 24 ii i      ii   ii i        +* Re: Baby X is bor nagain2James Kuyper
21 Jun 24 ii i      ii   ii i        i`- Re: Baby X is bor nagain1Keith Thompson
22 Jun 24 ii i      ii   ii i        `* Re: Baby X is bor nagain20Tim Rentsch
23 Jun 24 ii i      ii   ii i         `* Re: Baby X is bor nagain19Ben Bacarisse
23 Jun 24 ii i      ii   ii i          +* Re: Baby X is bor nagain9James Kuyper
23 Jun 24 ii i      ii   ii i          i`* Re: Baby X is bor nagain8Tim Rentsch
24 Jun 24 ii i      ii   ii i          i +* Re: Baby X is bor nagain4Ben Bacarisse
24 Jun 24 ii i      ii   ii i          i i`* Re: Baby X is bor nagain3Tim Rentsch
25 Jun 24 ii i      ii   ii i          i i `* Re: Baby X is bor nagain2Ben Bacarisse
25 Jun 24 ii i      ii   ii i          i i  `- Re: Baby X is bor nagain1Tim Rentsch
24 Jun 24 ii i      ii   ii i          i `* Re: Baby X is bor nagain3Keith Thompson
24 Jun 24 ii i      ii   ii i          i  `* Re: Baby X is bor nagain2Tim Rentsch
23 Jun 24 ii i      ii   ii i          `* Re: Baby X is bor nagain9Tim Rentsch
19 Jun 24 ii i      ii   ii `- Re: Baby X is bor nagain1Keith Thompson
19 Jun 24 ii i      ii   i`* Re: Baby X is bor nagain5David Brown
19 Jun 24 ii i      ii   `- Re: Baby X is bor nagain1David Brown
18 Jun 24 ii i      i+- Re: Baby X is bor nagain1James Kuyper
20 Jun 24 ii i      i`- Re: Baby X is bor nagain1Vir Campestris
17 Jun 24 ii i      +* Re: Baby X is bor nagain193bart
17 Jun 24 ii i      `* Re: Baby X is bor nagain3Malcolm McLean
12 Jun 24 ii `* Topicality is not your strong suit (Was: Baby X is bor nagain)2Kenny McCormack
11 Jun 24 i`* Re: Baby X is bor nagain3bart
11 Jun 24 `- Re: Baby X is bor nagain1Kalevi Kolttonen

Haut de la page

Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.

NewsPortal