Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!bloom-beacon!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!im4u!ut-sally!utah-cs!utah-gr!uplherc!sp7040!obie!wsccs!terry
From: terry@wsccs.UUCP (Every system needs one)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Optimization (was Re: volatile)
Message-ID: <505@wsccs.UUCP>
Date: 28 Apr 88 05:28:45 GMT
References: <13074@brl-adm.ARPA> <474@sas.UUCP>
Lines: 30

In article <474@sas.UUCP>, bts@sas.UUCP (Brian T. Schellenberger) writes:
| In article <13074@brl-adm.ARPA> dsill@NSWC-OAS.arpa (Dave Sill) writes:
| |I (Terry) write:
| |>Basically, if it works without -O, it should work with -O, regardless of what
| |>the compiler writer's optimization does to achieve its goal.  If this makes
| |>writing compilers harder, so what?
| |
| |This bears repeating.  There should be no circumstances under which
| |the semantics of the language are changed by a flag to the compiler.
| 
| And anyway, you can always compile with minimal optimization if you find doing
| really unreasonable things makes you happy.

I find compiling my K&R code which runs on many machines today on different
machines in 10 years at an inconvenience to optimizer writers makes me happy.
It makes the optimizer writer's unhappy.  I am more deserving of happy ;-).

Is that unreasonable?  Being a compiler user, rather than a compiler writer
(at least not a 'C' compiler writer), there are more of me, and more is
better.  I know this is true, otherwise what would the compilers be written
in, given that there are more compilers being written that there are, in this
case.


| Terry Lambert           UUCP: ...{ decvax, ihnp4 } ...utah-cs!century!terry |
| @ Century Software        OR: ...utah-cs!uplherc!sp7040!obie!wsccs!terry    |
| SLC, Utah                                                                   |
|                   These opinions are not my companies, but if you find them |
|                   useful, send a $20.00 donation to Brisbane Australia...   |
| 'Admit it!  You're just harrasing me because of the quote in my signature!' |