Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site decwrl.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!mhuxn!mhuxb!mhuxr!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!godot!harvard!talcott!panda!genrad!decvax!decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-mrvax!ddb
From: ddb@mrvax.DEC (DAVID DYER-BENNET MRO1-2/L14 DTN 231-4076)
Newsgroups: net.lang.c
Subject: HLL vs. "HLL-like" macro packages
Message-ID: <449@decwrl.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 3-Feb-85 17:21:14 EST
Article-I.D.: decwrl.449
Posted: Sun Feb  3 17:21:14 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 6-Feb-85 04:45:50 EST
Sender: daemon@decwrl.UUCP
Organization: DEC Engineering Network
Lines: 16

>Path: decwrl!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!brl-tgr!tgr!cottrell@nbs-vms.ARPA
>
>> Furthermore, developing macros can make an assembler look more 
>> structured and introduce some higher-level concepts, but it normally
>> makes the code produced LESS good than hand coding.
>
>If that is true, how can a compiler produce better code than by hand?
>High level languages are in a sense complex macros. Anyway, your code
>is probably I/O bound. 

A compiler can produce better code than a set of HLL-like macros because
the (any decent) compiler contains an optimizer, which no assembler I'm
familiar with does.

		-- David Dyer-Bennet
		-- ...decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-mrvax!ddb