3 ms·
Their use of words is quite misleading. Code generation as a process of generating code is orders of magnitude faster, but not the generated code, result of co
by adontz 3y ago
Their use of words is quite misleading.
Code generation as a process of generating code is orders of magnitude faster, but not the generated code, result of code generation.
- e12e 3y agoThank you. I was trying to figure out why clang -O0 was faster than -O3...
- fatherzine 3y ago"14% faster than LLVM -O0" is fairly misleading too. How does the generated code compare with LLVM -O2/-O3? These are SQL queries, which are usually fairly short programs, where I would presume the cost of compiling is negligible compared to the cost of execution.
- mkesper 3y agoThe generated code runs an order of magnitude faster than interpretation and 14% faster than LLVM -O0. An order of magnitude faster than interpretation. That's the interesting part for Python, I'd think.
- stuaxo 3y agoI'd say it's a starting point, and also how else would you measure a baseline ? You're right that O2/O3 should be compared too, though they will be more moved targets.
- fatherzine 3y agoMeasure time-to-results = compile-time + execution-time, for jit/O0/O2/O3. Fairly basic.
- zodiac 3y agoI think there’s syntactic ambiguity whether “faster” modifies “generates” or “code”