Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!apple!satyr!ditka!comeau
From: comeau@ditka.Chicago.COM (Greg Comeau)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.programmer
Subject: Re: REVIEW:  Comeau C++ compiler
Keywords: programming, language, C++, compiler
Message-ID: <37123@ditka.Chicago.COM>
Date: 19 Apr 91 18:46:21 GMT
References: <1540@tronsbox.xei.com> <36963@ditka.Chicago.COM> <1991Apr17.174759.16250@jato.jpl.nasa.gov>
Reply-To: comeau@csanta.attmail.com (Greg Comeau)
Organization: Comeau Computing
Lines: 26

In article <1991Apr17.174759.16250@jato.jpl.nasa.gov> jdickson@jato.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (Jeff Dickson) writes:
>	Since this C++ compiler rewrites your C++ into plain'ol C, does it
>do a good job? Say compared to if a human performed the translation manually.

That is not quite the issue as the C code is not quite the way a human
would do it in C ...remember that we code in some language for readability.
Also, this is machine generated output not intended for human consumption
just like the asm output of your C compiler is not necessarily intended
for human consumption.  This "not intention" does not mean the code is
bad though.

In any event, the C code emitted does not contain anything
it doesn't need and the C compiler is still at liberty (and should) to
optimize the code.  From my discussion with other compiler writers as
well as my own feelings, there is very little that say a direct native
code compiler could do better, and when it can, it usually comes down
to only another instruction (and yes, an extra instruction could be critical
for an app, but certainly the difference between a translating compiler
and a direct native code compiler has nothing to do with that).

- Greg
-- 
	 Comeau Computing, 91-34 120th Street, Richmond Hill, NY, 11418
                            Producers of Comeau C++
          Here:attmail.com!csanta!comeau / BIX:comeau / CIS:72331,3421
                     Voice:718-945-0009 / Fax:718-441-2310