Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!snorkelwacker!spdcc!esegue!compilers-sender
From: pardo@cs.washington.edu (David Keppel)
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Subject: Re: Unsafe Optimizations (WAS: Compiler Design in C How about it?)
Keywords: optimize
Message-ID: <1990Jun5.173332.2763@esegue.segue.boston.ma.us>
Date: 5 Jun 90 17:33:32 GMT
References: <1990Jun4.044255.14857@esegue.segue.boston.ma.us> <1990Jun1.194941.5781@esegue.segue.boston.ma.us> <1990Jun4.212226.18389@esegue.segue.boston.ma.us>
Sender: compilers-sender@esegue.segue.boston.ma.us
Reply-To: pardo@cs.washington.edu (David Keppel)
Organization: University of Washington, Computer Science, Seattle
Lines: 16
Approved: compilers@esegue.segue.boston.ma.us

larus@spool.cs.wisc.edu writes:
>[Some programmers are willing to throw away some of
> their sequential semantics in order to get processing power.]

In which case you're no longer compiling the same language.  The point
that I would like to make is that such things are *language extensions*
and not *compiler optimizations*.

		;-D on  ( Language retractions? )  Pardo
-- 
		    pardo@cs.washington.edu
    {rutgers,cornell,ucsd,ubc-cs,tektronix}!uw-beaver!june!pardo
-- 
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.