Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cis.ohio-state.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!bloom-beacon!eru!hagbard!sunic!mcsun!hp4nl!charon!dik
From: dik@cwi.nl (Dik T. Winter)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Some optimization results
Message-ID: <3520@charon.cwi.nl>
Date: 15 May 91 00:43:20 GMT
References: <5850:May901:25:0491@kramden.acf.nyu.edu> <3501@charon.cwi.nl> <14077:May1321:14:2691@kramden.acf.nyu.edu>
Sender: news@cwi.nl
Organization: CWI, Amsterdam
Lines: 9

In article <14077:May1321:14:2691@kramden.acf.nyu.edu> brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein) writes:
 > Hold on. The ``bug'' here is simply that the compiler missed an
 > optimization. Do you mean to imply that any compiler which misses any
 > optimization is buggy?
Yup.  If the compiler tells me he is not doing it because of some reason
that is patently untrue.  (In this case a non-existant dependency.)
--
dik t. winter, cwi, amsterdam, nederland
dik@cwi.nl