Re: [cc65] cosmetic and optimization

Date view Thread view Subject view

From: Spiro Trikaliotis (trik-news_at_gmx.de)
Date: 2003-12-09 18:05:53 

Hi Uz,

On Tue, Dec 09, 2003 at 10:06:14AM +0100, Ullrich von Bassewitz wrote:

> Adding optimizatons like the one you requested is always a tradeoff, because
> it adds code to the compiler backend, which has to be maintained and may
> contain bugs. So before adding such code I do usually ask "is it worth it?",

On the other hand: As the special case carlos mentioned would be able to
be found and removed by a peephole optimizer, I ask myself if this
really is too much complexity?

> An average program will have 3 or 4 of these shifts, making such an
> optimization neglectible.

Is this sequence only occurring while using shifts, or are there other
circumstances that may lead to these?

> So while I may add such an optimization some time, I don't see an urgent need
> for it.

Ack, this is not urgent. :-)

Later,
   Spiro.

-- 
Spiro R. Trikaliotis
http://www.trikaliotis.net/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list send mail to majordomo_at_musoftware.de with
the string "unsubscribe cc65" in the body(!) of the mail.

Date view Thread view Subject view

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : 2003-12-09 18:06:54 CET