> > On Wednesday 05 April 2006 02:40, Andrew J. Kroll wrote: > > I just finished up a very nice program for optimizing the AS output of > > CC65. it will generate smaller executables with minimal loss of cpu cycles. > > > > see > > > > http://dr.ea.ms/OPTIML/ > > > > to get the tarball.... there is no web page for it yet, because I am > > looking to see how well it is accepted. All you will see is the tarball. > > > > You will need gcc and flex installed in order to compile it. > > > > In my own test results, executables shrink by 8k to 16k depending ofcourse > > on the content. Results will vari. > > > > Enjoy the peephole optimizer, and please if you use it, drop me a line > > with any suggestions, bug reports, new patterns, etc. > > that sounds pretty extreme... are you sure you had the compiler optimization > enabled? (also, did you check ftp://ftp.musoftware.de/pub/groepaz/opt65.c ?) > Yes, it's quite extreme, but then, it's a very large program to begin with. Ofcourse I did the optimization with -O Just looked over your peep hole opt... and have a thought... What if both were combined? What I can do first is compare exectuable sizes. Then, I'll run my pattern scanner on the new files, and see what kinds of matches I get. Chances are that both methods together could provide for some serious code crunching. Yours, -- Andrew J. Kroll Software and Hardware Engineer and Consultant Grafixoft http://dr.ea.ms/HW/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list send mail to majordomo@musoftware.de with the string "unsubscribe cc65" in the body(!) of the mail.Received on Wed Apr 5 07:15:13 2006
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 2006-04-05 07:15:16 CEST