News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:On the Madness of Optimizing Compilers by adrianN on Tuesday March 08, 2016 @03:35AM (#11244130)
Most new software does run on devices with batteries though. Having the CPU sleep more is a good thing to have.
Re:On the Madness of Optimizing Compilers by randomsearch on Tuesday March 08, 2016 @04:20AM (#11244275)
This is an interesting thought.

Do we know that most new software runs in batteries? Do you have a reference for that? It would be useful.

Other question is - does a sleeping CPU always win, or are other optimisations such as memory usage, screen usage, and communications, more important? I know for sure that the CPU is not the main consumer of power on a bunch of Android phones that were used in an academic study.

Re:On the Madness of Optimizing Compilers by adrianN on Tuesday March 08, 2016 @04:34AM (#11244311)
I don't have hard numbers. Most computation is probably done on servers. But power matters there as well (a lot). Most devices sold today are laptops and smart phones, I think. Some people claim that the IoT will be a thing real soon now, with embedded sensors everywhere.

Probably the CPU is not the main power sink on mobile devices (screen and radio are I think). But cranking up the optimization level is free for the developer.

Re:On the Madness of Optimizing Compilers by randomsearch on Tuesday March 08, 2016 @04:54AM (#11244378)
So, this was my point - is it really free for the developer? For example, GPGPU compilers full of subtle bugs cost significant development time.
Re:On the Madness of Optimizing Compilers by adrianN on Tuesday March 08, 2016 @05:23AM (#11244468)
GPGPU is still relatively new and the tooling is still under work. But compiling with g++ -O2 instead of -O0 is pretty safe