3 ms·

Ok, but that’s sw engineering issue. I still insist that a production grade compiler can’t leave performance on table. Which is where the current battlefield i

Ok, but that’s sw engineering issue. I still insist that a production grade compiler can’t leave performance on table. Which is where the current battlefield is.

jsnnsjxj 2y ago
I do not agree in the general case. There are very useful DSL compilers which do not consider performance at all, but just compile to a target which does the optimization for them (JVM, LLVM IR or even just C)
- auselen 2y ago
  Yes but those are called transpilers, right?
  - odjdnejej 2y ago
    There is no fundamental difference between a compiler, transpiler and interpreter. The techniques employed are very similar
bigstrat2003 2y ago
I think a production grade compiler not only can, but must, leave performance on the table when the cost is correctness (unless the performance gain is incredibly high and the correctness loss is minimal). Correctness is not all important, but it is the most important thing. Unfortunately, compiler writers do not agree and they do silly things like "let's assume UB cannot ever happen and optimize based on that".
- auselen 2y ago
  Correctness is already a must, how did you arrive to this?
  - kragen 2y ago
    if only the gcc and llvm maintainers, and c standard authors, agreed with you
    - auselen 2y ago
      I mean these compilers build all these SW stacks, even this very browser I’m using, where are these correctness issues you are talking about?
      - kragen 2y ago
        there are new items in this category every day, but https://blog.cr.yp.to/20240803-clang.html https://blog.cr.yp.to/20240803-clang.html is noteworthy
        auselen 2y ago
        Eh https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41146860 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41146860
        kragen 2y ago
        yes, that
        fulafel 2y ago
        This is about optimizations affecting timing of cryptographic code, not correctness of computation, the argument for calling this a correctness bug in the compiler is quite weak I think.

Ok, but that’s sw engineering issue. I still insist that a production grade compiler can’t leave performance on table. Which is where the current battlefield is.

jsnnsjxj 2y ago

I do not agree in the general case. There are very useful DSL compilers which do not consider performance at all, but just compile to a target which does the optimization for them (JVM, LLVM IR or even just C)

auselen 2y ago
Yes but those are called transpilers, right?
- odjdnejej 2y ago
  There is no fundamental difference between a compiler, transpiler and interpreter. The techniques employed are very similar

bigstrat2003 2y ago

I think a production grade compiler not only can, but must, leave performance on the table when the cost is correctness (unless the performance gain is incredibly high and the correctness loss is minimal). Correctness is not all important, but it is the most important thing. Unfortunately, compiler writers do not agree and they do silly things like "let's assume UB cannot ever happen and optimize based on that".

auselen 2y ago
Correctness is already a must, how did you arrive to this?
- kragen 2y ago
  if only the gcc and llvm maintainers, and c standard authors, agreed with you
  - auselen 2y ago
    I mean these compilers build all these SW stacks, even this very browser I’m using, where are these correctness issues you are talking about?
    - kragen 2y ago
      there are new items in this category every day, but https://blog.cr.yp.to/20240803-clang.html https://blog.cr.yp.to/20240803-clang.html is noteworthy
      - auselen 2y ago
        Eh https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41146860 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41146860
        kragen 2y ago
        yes, that
      - fulafel 2y ago
        This is about optimizations affecting timing of cryptographic code, not correctness of computation, the argument for calling this a correctness bug in the compiler is quite weak I think.