Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sample.eng.ohio-state.edu!kaa!rob
From: rob@kaa.eng.ohio-state.edu (Rob Carriere)
Subject: Re: low level optimization
Message-ID: <1991Apr24.174057.22470@ee.eng.ohio-state.edu>
Sender: news@ee.eng.ohio-state.edu
Organization: The Ohio State University Dept of Electrical Engineering
References: <21961@lanl.gov> <11129@ncar.ucar.edu> <22246@lanl.gov>
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 1991 17:40:57 GMT

In article <22246@lanl.gov> jlg@cochiti.lanl.gov (Jim Giles) spouts forth:
>P.S.  As I keep pointing out, the _loader_ (or some load-time tool)
>_can_ satisfy the standard and still do intermodule optimization.
>The 'translator' (usually thought of as the compiler) cannot.

Err, yes it can.  Someone else has already explained how to do this by
including optimized and non-optimized versions of the code in the same object
file.  Since I assume that you read less selectively than you answer, I won't
repeat his scheme.

So, where does this leave us?  We now have 2 conforming implementations of
intermodular analysis.  Mister Giles started this whole brouhaha with a claim
that C coudn't be optimized as well as FORTRAN, since you needed to do IM
analysis for that and the standard didn't allow such things.  I would think
that 2 implementations count as sufficient counterexamples, so would mister
Giles either admit he was wrong or else shut up?

Nice try to divert the argument, though.

SR
---