How do you know? It seems entirely plausible to me that significantly better compiler optimization could reduce the level of manual optimization needed for embedded systems, and thus reduce the time-to-market.
Actually the time to make a new compiler is reduced *and* the optimization performance of the compiler increased when compared to standard GCC (whichis what the 18% refers to). Therefore 'normal' desktop use is a real possibility.
Developing a good optimizing compiler quickly is very important when the hardware can change very easily, which is why it works well for reconfigurable processors.
However, the results are impressive even on static architectures like x86 and PPC.
Highly optimized software does take a long time to build because of manual optimization. Plus, if anything changes, that optimization might need to be done again. And yes, a good compiler will move that loop for you.
Slashdot Mirror
The summary is complete bollocks.
How do you know? It seems entirely plausible to me that significantly better compiler optimization could reduce the level of manual optimization needed for embedded systems, and thus reduce the time-to-market.
Actually the time to make a new compiler is reduced *and* the optimization performance of the compiler increased when compared to standard GCC (whichis what the 18% refers to). Therefore 'normal' desktop use is a real possibility.
Developing a good optimizing compiler quickly is very important when the hardware can change very easily, which is why it works well for reconfigurable processors. However, the results are impressive even on static architectures like x86 and PPC.
Highly optimized software does take a long time to build because of manual optimization. Plus, if anything changes, that optimization might need to be done again. And yes, a good compiler will move that loop for you.