Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!crdgw1!uunet!overload!dillon From: dillon@overload.Berkeley.CA.US (Matthew Dillon) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.programmer Subject: Re: DICE vs GCC Message-ID: Date: 6 Apr 91 22:38:04 GMT References: <1991Apr5.153411.10189@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> Organization: Not an Organization Lines: 38 In article <1991Apr5.153411.10189@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> cs326ag@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Loren J. Rittle) writes: >In article ben@epmooch.UUCP (Rev. Ben A. Mesander) writes: >>Try compiling the GNU regexp code with SAS/C and the -O option. Then >>.. >code onto 53 lines, SAS/C took the code with no problem. It took ~30 >minutes to compile with -O on my '030 machine, but the executable was twice >as fast as what (not a slam in any way) DICE produced in ~30 seconds! >[Matt: if you want to see some code that DICE does not fair well >on as compared to SAS/C, I can mail you the source.] > >Disclaimer: This was version 2.06 (Freely Redistributable release) >of DICE and I may well not given 'good' options to dcc... >Disclaimer2: This was version v5.10A of SAS/C and I know what I'm >doing with this compiler... :-) >Disclaimer3: Full 32-bit addressing was used with both compilers >as this compression code burns memory. > >In sum, both DICE and SAS/C were able to handle the max loop unrolling >that the author provided for. A+ marks (IMHO). Actually, I would be interested in the code. DICE does not do any major optimizations and I would certainly expect SAS/C to beat it with -O turned on, but as you noted it *does* compile things quickly :-) Still, half as fast sounds like I have a little work to do. >>| ben@epmooch.UUCP (Ben Mesander) | "Cash is more important than | > >Loren J. Rittle -Matt -- Matthew Dillon dillon@Overload.Berkeley.CA.US 891 Regal Rd. uunet.uu.net!overload!dillon Berkeley, Ca. 94708 USA