Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!uunet!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!bloom-beacon!mit-eddie!killer!texbell!bigtex!james
From: james@bigtex.cactus.org (James Van Artsdalen)
Newsgroups: gnu.gcc.bug
Subject: Re: GCC 1.30 complaints
Message-ID: <9773@bigtex.cactus.org>
Date: 24 Oct 88 00:42:11 GMT
References: <8810220131.AA00312@ucsci.ucsc.edu> <1531@vaxnix.tandy.COM>
Reply-To: james@bigtex.cactus.org (James Van Artsdalen)
Distribution: gnu
Organization: Dell Computer Co, Austin TX
Lines: 15

In <1531@vaxnix.tandy.COM>, ron@vaxnix.tandy.COM (Ron Light) wrote:

> I would find it sheer lunacy to have that loop eliminated in favor of
> a=100.  That type of loop is used QUITE often for DELAY loops.  Try
> writing a driver sometime where you need a delay loop, and see what
> happens when "a=100" is all that's generated with no delay.

Surely you don't seriously expect that kind of loop to work?  Good
Lord, even if you figure out the right constants for a particular
compiler on a particular machine, what happens when Tandy builds a
33MHz 386, or GNU C v2.0 generates code twice as good as v1.30, or you
switch to some other compiler or CPU altogether?
-- 
James R. Van Artsdalen      james@bigtex.cactus.org      "Live Free or Die"
Home: 512-346-2444 Work: 338-8789       9505 Arboretum Blvd Austin TX 78759