Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!cmcl2!brl-adm!adm!MAILER%ALASKA.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU
From: MAILER%ALASKA.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Undelivered mail
Message-ID: <12280@brl-adm.ARPA>
Date: 12 Mar 88 08:25:56 GMT
Sender: news@brl-adm.ARPA
Lines: 30

Subject:  Re: I forget what it was originally called.

[Non-Deliverable:  User does not exist or has never logged on]

Reply-To: Info-C@BRL.ARPA

Received: From UWAVM(MAILER) by ALASKA with Jnet id 6928
          for SXJVK@ALASKA; Fri, 11 Mar 88 22:50 AST
Received: by UWAVM (Mailer X1.25) id 4656; Fri, 11 Mar 88 23:50:17 PST
Date:         Thu, 10 Mar 88 19:30:54 GMT
Reply-To:     Info-C@BRL.ARPA
Sender:       Info-C List <INFO-C@NDSUVM1>
Comments:     Warning -- original Sender: tag was netnews@PT.CS.CMU.EDU
From:         Eddie Wyatt <edw@IUS1.CS.CMU.EDU>
Subject:      Re: I forget what it was originally called.
Comments: To: info-c@BRL-SMOKE.arpa
To:           Vic Kapella <SXJVK@ALASKA>

> Which brings me to another question:  How good are compilers these
> day?  Can they optimize just as well as a programmer (without
> resorting to assembly, that is) or not?  For example:
        [common subexpress example deleted]

  All depends on the compiler.  ccp is generally a bad optimizing compiler.
Green Hill gcc and Tartan C compilers are suppose to produce lightening fast
executables.  If I could only get gcc to compile a copy of "man", I
might use it.
--

Eddie Wyatt                 e-mail: edw@ius1.cs.cmu.edu