Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
> Jérôme M. Berger Wrote:
>
>> Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
>>> When we're talking about the difference between O(1) and O(lgn), I'll
>>> take accuracy over speed in my compiler any day.
>> And when we're talking about the difference between 10s and 55s for
>> a minimal loss of accuracy, which will you take? Especially if the
>> accuracy loss is less than is lost elsewhere (due to holes in the
>> ranges).
>
> Really? You rebuilt the compiler with your range propagation algorithm and
> verified that it adds 10 seconds versus an accurate one that adds 55s? How
> much time did the compiler spend to compile? I'd hazard to guess that a code
> base that adds 10s worth of your algorithm takes at least a few hours to
> compile. Is 55s that bad at that point?
>
> Again, if it takes the compiler an extra insignificant amount of time to be
> more accurate, I'm all for accuracy over speed when you get down to that
> level of insignificance. I'd say the point of pain has to be at least 10% of
> the compile time before it makes any sizable difference.
>
My point is that if you always choose an algorithm that is 5 to 6
times slower just because it brings extra precision which you may
not really need, then you will wind up with a compiler that is 5 to
6 times slower than it needs to be. Sure the difference on *one*
function is not great in absolute terms, but if you make the same
choice for *all* functions, then where do you go?
Jerome
--
mailto:jeber...@free.fr
http://jeberger.free.fr
Jabber: jeber...@jabber.fr
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
