Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att-cb!att-ih!pacbell!ptsfa!ames!pasteur!agate!saturn!ucscc.UCSC.EDU!haynes
From: haynes@ucscc.UCSC.EDU (99700000)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: 16 & 32 bit vs 32 bit only instructions for RISC.
Keywords: CRISP optimizing compilers
Message-ID: <2247@saturn.ucsc.edu>
Date: 8 Mar 88 06:05:39 GMT
References: <9651@steinmetz.steinmetz.UUCP> <9678@steinmetz.steinmetz.UUCP> <2574@im4u.UUCP> <929@mtund.ATT.COM> <22746@clyde.ATT.COM>
Sender: usenet@saturn.ucsc.edu
Reply-To: haynes@ucscc.UCSC.EDU (Jim Haynes)
Organization: California State Home for the Weird
Lines: 14

In article <22746@clyde.ATT.COM> gwu@clyde.UUCP (George Wu) writes:
>
>     However, I find that hard to believe. Once a program is correctly
>compiled, it will be run many more times than it was compiled, and in the
>long run, you are better off optimizing the application code, instead of the
>compiler.

Well, now, in the educational environment a program is compiled (not
correctly, of course) more times than it is run.  I guess this could
be an excuse for having separate "checkout" and "production" compilers,
or for having optimization be optional.
haynes@ucscc.ucsc.edu
haynes@ucscc.bitnet
..ucbvax!ucscc!haynes