Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 8/28/84; site lll-crg.ARPA
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!umcp-cs!gymble!lll-crg!brooks
From: brooks@lll-crg.ARPA (Eugene D. Brooks III)
Newsgroups: net.lang.c
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Un-alignment in structures
Message-ID: <509@lll-crg.ARPA>
Date: Sun, 7-Apr-85 01:05:39 EST
Article-I.D.: lll-crg.509
Posted: Sun Apr  7 01:05:39 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 9-Apr-85 00:48:33 EST
References: <230@tellab2.UUCP>, <135@mit-athena.UUCP> <5399@utzoo.UUCP> <7170@watdaisy.UUCP> <491@lll-crg.ARPA> <173@geowhiz.UUCP>
Organization: Lawrence Livermore Labs, CRG group
Lines: 15

> >> If you have to remove one millisecond from a tight loop that has to run
> >> in 50 milliseconds, you really should use assembly.
> > 
> > If you can possibly do it in assembly then an optimizing compiler that
> > generates good code can do it just as fast and you gain portability.
> 
>   Can somebody *PROVE* this.  I don't think it's true.  I think a better
> statement would be that an optimizing compiler *might* be able to generate
> code that is as fast.  (And then again it might not be able to.)

The proof goes as follows.  If the compiler did not generate optimal code
then the compiler was not an optimizing compiler of high enough quality.
Get a better compiler.

							QED, and 1/2 :-)