Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!ames!mailrus!uflorida!novavax!hcx1!hcx3!gwp
From: gwp@hcx3.SSD.HARRIS.COM
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: "interprocedural analysis useless f
Message-ID: <93900018@hcx3>
Date: 18 Oct 88 14:24:00 GMT
References: <9988@cup.portal.com>
Lines: 15
Nf-ID: #R:cup.portal.com:9988:hcx3:93900018:000:803
Nf-From: hcx3.SSD.HARRIS.COM!gwp    Oct 18 10:24:00 1988


Written 11:47 am  Oct 15, 1988 by mac3n@babbage.acc.virginia.edu
> Perhaps the conclusion here is that language design up front simplifies
> optimization in back.  What does this tell us about universal intermediate
> languages?

Not much, other than the fact that any language system containing as
one of it's steps a univerisal intermediate form will not lend itself
to any sort of sophisticated optimization.  But you knew that.  I
thought the idea behind a machine independent intermediate language
was to sacrifice efficiency for portablility.  This idea makes sense
on a large scale because machine cycle costs are always decreasing
while human engineering (if you call porting engineering) costs are
always increasing.

Gil Pilz   -=|*|=-   Harris Computer Systems   -=|*|=-   gwp@ssd.harris.com