Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!yale!husc6!xait!g-rh
From: g-rh@XAIT.Xerox.COM (Richard Harter)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Efficient Coding Practices
Message-ID: <34454@XAIT.Xerox.COM>
Date: 8 Oct 88 06:53:03 GMT
References: <8809191521.AA17824@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU> <68995@sun.uucp> <23025@amdcad.AMD.COM> <607@ardent.UUCP> <836@proxftl.UUCP> <34112@XAIT.XEROX.COM> <846@proxftl.UUCP> <34196@XAIT.Xerox.COM> <222@sns.UUCP>
Reply-To: g-rh@XAIT.Xerox.COM (Richard Harter)
Organization: Xerox Corporation, Cambridge, Massachusetts
Lines: 17

In article <222@sns.UUCP> space@sns.UUCP (Lars Soltau) writes:
>In article <34196@XAIT.Xerox.COM> g-rh@XAIT.Xerox.COM (Richard Harter) writes:
>>Lesson:  If one is optimizing code one has to think about what the machine
>>will have to do in different implementations when comparing them.

>Lesson: never optimize C code if you have not written the compiler yourself,
>it's far easier and safer to optimize the assembler code.

If only life were so simple.  If you are maintaining programs across a host
of machines and operating systems assembler code is a strong minus.  For many
of us the issue of interest is optimization within the contraints of
portability.
-- 

In the fields of Hell where the grass grows high
Are the graves of dreams allowed to die.
	Richard Harter, SMDS  Inc.