Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!ttrdc!levy
From: levy@ttrdc.UUCP (Daniel R. Levy)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Some possible deficiencies in dpANS (or whatever its called)
Message-ID: <2126@ttrdc.UUCP>
Date: 24 Jan 88 09:59:05 GMT
References: <4755@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu> <7134@brl-smoke.ARPA> <8490@prls.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T, Skokie, IL
Lines: 20

In article <8490@prls.UUCP>, gardner@prls.UUCP (Robert Gardner) writes:
> It would also be nice if an optimizer would give a warning if it
> eliminates an entire statement because it performs no useful actions.
> I would think that most such statements are programming errors.

Certain correct macros might give rise to rather puzzling diagnostics if
this were default behavior.  Of course we all know that REAL hackers ignore
all diagnostics from compilation, y'know, pesky remarks like "illegal
combination of pointer and integer" (which arises when forgetting to
declare pointer-valued functions), as long as it produces an executable.
(Is a :-) necessary?)

Also, in some systems (such as UNIX(tm) System V), the optimizer doesn't
see the source code statements; it sees assembly language.  By that point it
may be difficult to refer back to statements in the original code.
-- 
|------------Dan Levy------------|  Path: ..!{akgua,homxb,ihnp4,ltuxa,mvuxa,
|         an Engihacker @        |  	<most AT&T machines>}!ttrdc!ttrda!levy
| AT&T Computer Systems Division |  Disclaimer?  Huh?  What disclaimer???
|--------Skokie, Illinois--------|