Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!spool.mu.edu!munnari.oz.au!bruce!mmcg
From: mmcg@bruce.cs.monash.OZ.AU (Mike McGaughey)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: low level optimization
Message-ID: <4002@bruce.cs.monash.OZ.AU>
Date: 20 Apr 91 03:43:16 GMT
References: <1991Apr17.225944.15261@zoo.toronto.edu> <1991Apr18.190403.29049@Think.COM> <21846@lanl.gov> <1991Apr19.055002.3399@Think.COM> <21964@lanl.gov>
Organization: Monash Uni. Computer Science, Australia
Lines: 23

jlg@cochiti.lanl.gov (Jim Giles) writes:

>> Once you invoke the implementation's extension that does inter-module
>> optimization [...]
>> [...] you have ventured outside the scope of the standard, just as if you
>> had invoked a compiler option that enables some implementation-specific
>> feature.

>That's what I keep trying to point out.  Thank heavens for someone 
>finally joining the discussion who understands the issue.

A pity you dont.  All that the above means is that ANSI C doesn't force
you to optimise code.  As plenty of people have pointed out, it doesn't
force you *not* to optimise code either, nor does it limit the extent
of your optimisations.  You just optimise *after* the C-to-intermediate-
code translation is done.

Mike.
-- 
Mike McGaughey			AARNET:	mmcg@bruce.cs.monash.oz.au

"His state is kingly; thousands at his bidding speed,
 And post o'er land and ocean without rest."		- Milton.