Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: bart <bc@freeuk.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: C23 thoughts and opinions
Date: Sun, 26 May 2024 22:27:15 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 62
Message-ID: <v309fk$3jrtv$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v2l828$18v7f$1@dont-email.me>
 <00297443-2fee-48d4-81a0-9ff6ae6481e4@gmail.com>
 <v2lji1$1bbcp$1@dont-email.me> <87msoh5uh6.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com>
 <f08d2c9f-5c2e-495d-b0bd-3f71bd301432@gmail.com>
 <v2nbp4$1o9h6$1@dont-email.me> <v2ng4n$1p3o2$1@dont-email.me>
 <87y18047jk.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com>
 <87msoe1xxo.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <v2sh19$2rle2$2@dont-email.me>
 <87ikz11osy.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <v2v59g$3cr0f$1@dont-email.me>
 <v2v7ni$3d70v$1@dont-email.me> <20240526161832.000012a6@yahoo.com>
 <v2vka0$3f4a2$1@dont-email.me> <20240526193549.000031a8@yahoo.com>
 <v2vtdi$3gnl6$1@dont-email.me> <20240526232651.00002d2e@yahoo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 26 May 2024 23:27:17 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="8e9185d4e0820a2f5b79db78e2103a30";
	logging-data="3796927"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+uSA1OwJwSmLpZ2uqLzMFY"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:DmbGdR6ZyVwjFi5EpRECLiq92oA=
Content-Language: en-GB
In-Reply-To: <20240526232651.00002d2e@yahoo.com>
Bytes: 3750

On 26/05/2024 21:26, Michael S wrote:
> On Sun, 26 May 2024 19:01:21 +0100
> bart <bc@freeuk.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 26/05/2024 17:35, Michael S wrote:
>>> On Sun, 26 May 2024 16:25:51 +0100
>>> bart <bc@freeuk.com> wrote:
>>>    
>>>    
>>>>
>>>> Back to the 5MB test:
>>>>
>>>>      Tiny C     1.7s    2.9MB/sec (Tcc doesn't use any IR)
>>>>
>>>>      mcc        3.7s    1.3MB/sec (my product; uses intermediate
>>>> ASM)
>>>
>>> Faster than new MSVC, but slower than old MSVC.
>>
>> My mcc is never going to be fast, because it uses ASM, which itself
>> will generate a text file several times larger than the C (so the
>> line "123," in C ends up as "   db    123" in the ASM file).
>>
> 
> Generation of asm at 7-8 MB/s sounds feasible even on slow computer.
> And once you have asm in right format,

If I take the 5M-line data file, and use `gcc -S` on it, produces an ASM 
file where the bytes are combined into strings. Is that the 'trick'?

Then processing that ASM file can be faster.

However my ASM o/p doesn't create strings like that, and the ASM file is 
therefore five times the size.

Still, my assembler can turn my 72MB ASM file into a 5MB executable in 
0.74 seconds (which is 100MB/sec).

'as' can turn its much smaller 15MB ASM (.s) file into an executable in 
0.56 seconds (27MB/sec).

 > 'gnu as' processes it quite fast.

Given the same input (ie. same set of instructions), my assembler is 
faster than 'as'. See this survey of assembler speeds here:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Compilers/comments/1c41y6d/assembler_survey/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button

Mine is the 'AA' assembler.

The bottleneck here is writing the ASM file. But I don't care about 
that, since 'mcc' is not my primary compiler. My primary one doesn't use 
ASM.

But even with that bottleneck, mcc compiles this data file to EXE three 
times as fast as gcc.

My MM compiler can do so 17 times as fast as gcc. And with the 
optimisation I mentioned in a previous post (similar to as's trick), it 
could do so 35-40 times faster than gcc.