Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!samsung!dali.cs.montana.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!hplabs!hpfcso!mjs
From: mjs@hpfcso.HP.COM (Marc Sabatella)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc
Subject: Re: Re: Aggressive optimization
Message-ID: <8960018@hpfcso.HP.COM>
Date: 24 Oct 90 16:10:53 GMT
References: <2301@wn1.sci.kun.nl>
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA
Lines: 12

>I have no objection to the compiler helping to optimize, and even making 
>suggestions to the programmer.  But I object to the first sentence; there
>should be NO details of the machine language, instruction overlap, etc.,
>hidden from the programmer.  The existence of a single machine instruction
>can determine whether or not a block of code, or an algorithm, should even
>be considered.

Perhaps that is why it took you and a graduate student two weeks to port a
sort routine (or whatever it was you were blathering about a few months ago).
If you want machine level, write in assembly.  And no I don't particularly care
to hear you rant about how existing assemblers don't have a flexible enough
notation.  Lobby for better assemblers; don't try to cripple HLL's.