Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!emory!gatech!purdue!haven!ncifcrf!lhc!adm!smoke!gwyn
From: gwyn@smoke.brl.mil (Doug Gwyn)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: low level optimization
Message-ID: <15902@smoke.brl.mil>
Date: 20 Apr 91 19:08:23 GMT
References: <1991Apr18.185442.7546@zoo.toronto.edu> <21848@lanl.gov> <1991Apr18.233653.19435@zoo.toronto.edu>
Organization: U.S. Army Ballistic Research Laboratory, APG, MD.
Lines: 9

In article <1991Apr18.233653.19435@zoo.toronto.edu> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:
>There is nothing non-conforming about a compiler that does certain
>optimizations only in favorable situations, ...

Note that WITHIN a translation unit various "interprocedural" optimizations
may be performed to good effect, including identification of alias-free
pointer arguments.  One of the C compilers I routinely use goes so far as
to expand small functions "in-line" in order to avoid function linkage
overhead.