Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!julius.cs.uiuc.edu!wuarchive!udel!haven!adm!cmcl2!kramden.acf.nyu.edu!brnstnd From: brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein) Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc Subject: Re: Optimizing Message-ID: <8515:Nov1522:16:1490@kramden.acf.nyu.edu> Date: 15 Nov 90 22:16:14 GMT References: <5020:Nov1518:23:0790@kramden.acf.nyu.edu> <11896@life.ai.mit.edu> Organization: IR Lines: 26 In article <11896@life.ai.mit.edu> misha@just-right.ai.mit.edu (Mike Bolotski) writes: > In article <5020:Nov1518:23:0790@kramden.acf.nyu.edu> brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein) writes: > >What I'd love to see is a way to turn on optimizer debugging output for > >a section of code. The optimizer would print out everything that it > >looks for while optimizing, what it finds, and what it's not sure about. > >Then the programmer can make assertions to fill in the missing gaps. > This is something that everyone in the group will hopefully agree on. I'm sure someone will disagree just for the sake of arguing with me. :-( > And by the way, Dan, are we ever going to see a public admission of > error on the "optimal addition sequence" issue? You mean my statements about optimizing addition chains in a general computation? In the ``array references cannot be made optimal'' thread I gave something that might stand for a proof of my assertions. Jim admits that I'm right too. > Or do you claim > to be more an authority on the issue than Aho, Sethi, or Ullman? I claim that you're misapplying their statements about something entirely different. In fact, I said so before in a followup to your article. ---Dan