Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!wuarchive!udel!haven!adm!cmcl2!lanl!jlg
From: jlg@lanl.gov (Jim Giles)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc
Subject: Re: Aggressive optimization
Message-ID: <5810@lanl.gov>
Date: 13 Nov 90 20:19:21 GMT
References: <7001:Nov1008:37:2690@kramden.acf.nyu.edu>
Organization: Los Alamos Natl Lab, Los Alamos, N.M.
Lines: 15

From article <7001:Nov1008:37:2690@kramden.acf.nyu.edu>, by brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein):
> [...]
> Jim, you've made a blanket assertion that arrays are as efficient as
> pointers. I've proven you wrong. Give up.

You have not even posted _one_ counter-example.  You have only
posted things the the compiler _could_ have optimized the array
version as well (or better than) your hand optimized pointer version.
The point you seem to miss is that _all_ of you hand-optimizations
apply to the array versions as well.  The only difference between
one-d array notation and pointers is the place at which the _base_
of the array is added.  I have amply demonstrated that _this_ part
of the optimization` can _easily_ be handled by the compiler.

J. Giles