Benjamin Goldberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Luke Palmer wrote:
> What is different about the resulting executable code from the code > produced by jit? If we could determine what the differences are, then > we might be able to change our jit to produce the same code as gcc -O3 > is producing, thus getting the same speed. JIT does only keep I and N regs in processor registers currently. gcc's optimizations are of course a lot more sophisticated. BTW "gcc -O3" isn't always faster, JIT MOps = 800, gcc = ~300 IIRC. primes.pasm where equally fast. >> But, as previously pointed out, pbc2c.pl's idea doesn't scale well and >> has a few other drawbacks, so I suppose this was destined to happen. > Is there any chance that we could try and make pbc2c.pl turn each pir > subroutine into a seperate function? That's the way to go. > If not enough information is available in the pbc to do that (though > AFAIK, there should be), then imcc itself could output the C code. Yep. > As another alternative, can't gcc optomize assembly, at least a little? AFAIK no, gcc spits out assembly. leo
