🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <18653@winchester.mips.COM> mash@mips.COM (John Mashey) writes:
>In article <147@dg.dg.com> rec@dg.UUCP (Robert Cousins) writes:
>.....
>
>>The OCS is a seperate document with specific hooks for Ada, PL/I, etc.
>>It deals with not only the extended/nested symbol table issues but also
>>attempts to deal with the other known problems as mentioned by all of the
>>88/Open members.  The collective experience and knowledge of the 88/Open 
>>group is substantial.
>Is this a published document?

Yes, contact Anne Marie Larking at Motorola (512)891-3160 for the latest
draft.

>>on compilers from day one.  I believe that it is clear, that this 
>>competitive situation, with a published standard as reference, has resulted 
>>in excellent compilers, very quickly.  Note that compilers for the 88K
>>produce code RIGHT NOW with performance (Mhz for Mhz) equal to the MIPS 
>-----------------------------^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>compiler, which has been in development for years. 
>
>The statement above is a) clear, b) definite, and c) VERY strong.
>Unlike much of the rest of the discussion (process X is better than
>process Y for getting compilers), this statement is at least testable.
>
>How about publishing some DATA to back this up?

Read MIPS magazine from April where the 88K went head to head with
the 3100 and won based upon their full set of benchmarks.  MIPS plans to
follow up on this with detailed information in another article.  We can
banter back and forth about what are reasonable measures and what aren't 
but the bottom line is that an independent and objective organization with 
a good reputation has compared the two products and has published results 
which agree with my statement above.  (And those benchmarks were run with 
a compiler now outdated.)

Just as benchmarks are used between hardware manufacturers, they are
used between compiler vendors.  Universally, the losing compiler vendors
claim some optimization is "unfair" and then usually adopt it in the 
next pass.  Who wins?  The consumer.  Who loses?  The bad compiler vendor.

So, I reiterate my point:  compilers produced in a competitive environment
will mould their features and performance to the needs of the consumers.
For those people who want fast compiles, there will probably be some
company which can compile code at very high speeds (and potentially
produce poor code).  For those who desire the last ounce of performance
there will be yet a different product.  Lastly for those who want to 
minimize space there may be a third.  There are already several good
C compilers for the 88K and this number will only grow over the next years.

>-- 
>-john mashey	DISCLAIMER: <generic disclaimer, I speak for me only, etc>

Robert Cousins

Speaking for myself alone.