Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!mailrus!ames!killer!elg
From: elg@killer.UUCP (Eric Green)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: C versus Assembly, which one?
Message-ID: <4508@killer.UUCP>
Date: 19 Jun 88 16:52:34 GMT
References: <1968@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu>
Sender: 0000-Admin(0000)
Organization: The Unix(R) Connection, Dallas, Texas
Lines: 26

in article <1968@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu>, lee@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu (Greg Lee) says:
> machine made for you?  Assembly language programmers like to talk
> directly to the cpu.

I always look at the assembly-language output of my programs to make sure that
they're operating fairly efficiently, and to make sure that they're doing
exactly what I want them to do ("C" "for" loops still drive me crazy :-} ).
That's as close as I want to come to assembly...

On a related topic, does the Lattice 4.0 compiler do any (useful)
optimizations besides common subexpression? In particular, some of the RISC
compilers generate code that keep calculated addresses around, and all of the
RISC compilers seem to make every attempt to keep most-common-used variables
in registers (in fact, the Pyramid 90x compiler totally ignores the "register"
declarators, as far as I can tell -- at least, when you have fewer than 16
local variables and 16 parameters).

I've been looking at the code generated by the Manx 3.60 compiler, and it
looks pretty simplistic. Does Lattice 4.0 manage any better?

(& onrelated topic, SDB gurus my machine regularly, sigh).

--
Eric Lee Green    ..!{ames,decwrl,mit-eddie,osu-cis}!killer!elg
          Snail Mail P.O. Box 92191 Lafayette, LA 70509              
"Is a dream a lie if it don't come true, or is it something worse?"