Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!oodis01!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: <539@wsccs.UUCP>
Date: 17 May 88 04:11:34 GMT
References: <13074@brl-adm.ARPA> <3938@killer.UUCP>, <511@wsccs.UUCP> <1988May4.195636.1801@utzoo.uucp>
Lines: 21

In article <1988May4.195636.1801@utzoo.uucp>, henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
| [begin snotty tone :-)] Well, I suppose people who make errors, and thus
| need debuggers, would have to worry about such things, but I fail to see
| any reason why *I* should eat my hat...  [end tone] :-) :-)
| 
| More seriously, yes, debugging optimized code can be a real pain.  I don't
| think even the Mips people, who put in a lot of effort on things like this,
| have a debugger that can explain to you what the optimized code is doing.
| You just have to tone down the optimization for debugging, and pray that
| there aren't any serious differences of opinion between you and the optimizer
| when it comes time to "compile for production".

Ok.  You can wash the condiments off your hat.  ;-)

The point is that there shouldn't be differences of opinion in "good code",
and anywhere that such a thing is possible is an example of a bad assumption,
given that the code conforms to the same standard as the compiler.

A bad assumption is a compiler bug.  If a compiler can't compile conforming
code, it isn't a conforming compiler.

				terry@wsccs