Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!pilchuck!dataio!fnx!nazgul!bright
From: bright@nazgul.UUCP (Walter Bright)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Just a little something that has been bothering me.
Message-ID: <207@nazgul.UUCP>
Date: 15 Dec 90 00:34:32 GMT
References: <1990Nov30.180913.20890@clear.com> <kbMJrQO00VpNEgwmsE@andrew.cmu.edu> <1990Dec08.222943.1581@cs.widener.edu> <14694@smoke.brl.mil> <202@nazgul.UUCP> <18539@hydra.gatech.EDU>
Reply-To: bright@nazgul.UUCP (Walter Bright)
Organization: Zortech, Seattle
Lines: 4

In article <18539@hydra.gatech.EDU> ccastdf@prism.gatech.EDU (Dave) writes:
/Therefore, on a 386 Sequent with no optimization, the first is more effieient.

Why are you concerned with which is more efficient if you turn off optimization?