3 ms·
if your compiler took a day (or even an hour) to compile a small program, you simply wouldn’t use it, no matter how good the resulting code was Some research h
by mjn 13y ago
if your compiler took a day (or even an hour) to compile a small program, you simply wouldn’t use it, no matter how good the resulting code was
Some research has been moving in that direction, since there does seem to be a demand for it. After all, if someone is willing to wait for you to spend a week hand-tuning a function, maybe they'd also be willing to run a compiler in a "take 10 hours to crunch on this" mode. Example: http://blog.regehr.org/archives/923 http://blog.regehr.org/archives/923
- stephencanon 13y agoOh, absolutely. That said, it’s also worth keeping in mind the enormous differences in how computers and expert humans currently approach the problem closely parallel the differences in how computers and expert humans play chess; quickly evaluate billions of possible “moves” vs. quickly identify the few most promising “moves” and then slowly evaluate them to pick the best. I fully expect to be regularly beaten by the compiler “someday”, but (a) I believe that day is still several years off and (b) even then, I expect that expert human + compiler will beat compiler alone, just as in chess.
- zwegner 13y agoAs a former chess engine author, and current compiler writer, with ideas in search-based compiler algorithms/unbounded compilation times, I hope to accelerate the arrival of that day :)