Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uwm.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!snorkelwacker!spdcc!esegue!compilers-sender From: tbrakitz@phoenix.princeton.edu (Byron Rakitzis) Newsgroups: comp.compilers Subject: Re: Compiler Design in C How about it? Keywords: books, optimize Message-ID: <1990Jun4.212544.18596@esegue.segue.boston.ma.us> Date: 4 Jun 90 21:25:44 GMT References: <1990Jun1.194941.5781@esegue.segue.boston.ma.us> <1990Jun4.044858.15066@esegue.segue.boston.ma.us> Sender: compilers-sender@esegue.segue.boston.ma.us Reply-To: tbrakitz@phoenix.princeton.edu (Byron Rakitzis) Organization: Princeton University, NJ Lines: 21 Approved: compilers@esegue.segue.boston.ma.us In article <1990Jun4.044858.15066@esegue.segue.boston.ma.us> Mark Henderson writes: >In article <1990Jun1.194941.5781@esegue.segue.boston.ma.us> Preston Briggs writes: >>[quoting Holub, using unsafe optimizations is an OK idea] > >Fact is, historically the optimizer is where compiler writers have hung >themselves. I've used several commercial compilers for which I often had to >turn off the optimization to get them to handle some pretty mundane code >properly. (I suppose there is no need to mention company names here). I've heard quite the opposite from Richard Stallman about his GCC compiler, paradoxically enough: he claims that there are more bugs in "gcc" as opposed to "gcc -O" since most of the time gcc users turn the optimizer on (and hence have uncovered the optimizer bugs) and also that the optimizer tends to hide a few bugs in the code generator by never letting it generate the bad code in the first place! -- Byron Rakitzis. (tbrakitz@phoenix.Princeton.EDU) -- Send compilers articles to compilers@esegue.segue.boston.ma.us {spdcc | ima | lotus}!esegue. Meta-mail to compilers-request@esegue. Please send responses to the author of the message, not the poster.