Re: Unsafe Optimizations (WAS: Compiler Design in C How about it?)

poser@csli.stanford.edu (Bill Poser)
Wed, 6 Jun 90 03:21:45 GMT

          From comp.compilers

Related articles
Unsafe Optimizations (WAS: Compiler Design in C How about it?) pardo@cs.washington.edu (1990-06-04)
Re: Unsafe Optimizations (WAS: Compiler Design in C How about it?) larus@spool.cs.wisc.edu (1990-06-04)
Re: Unsafe Optimizations (WAS: Compiler Design in C How about it?) MERRIMAN@ccavax.camb.com (George Merriman -- CCA/NY) (1990-06-05)
Re: Unsafe Optimizations (WAS: Compiler Design in C How about it?) mike@hpfcso.hp.com (1990-06-05)
Re: Unsafe Optimizations (WAS: Compiler Design in C How about it?) pardo@cs.washington.edu (1990-06-05)
Re: Unsafe Optimizations (WAS: Compiler Design in C How about it?) robinson@cs.dal.ca (1990-06-05)
Unsafe Optimizations (WAS: Compiler Design in C How about it?) stewart@sdsu.edu (1990-06-05)
Re: Unsafe Optimizations (WAS: Compiler Design in C How about it?) poser@csli.stanford.edu (1990-06-06)
Re: Unsafe Optimizations (WAS: Compiler Design in C How about it?) larus@primost.cs.wisc.edu (1990-06-07)
Re: Unsafe Optimizations (WAS: Compiler Design in C How about it?) tli@%phakt.usc.edu (1990-06-07)
Re: Unsafe Optimizations (WAS: Compiler Design in C How about it?) moss@cs.umass.edu (1990-06-10)
Re: Unsafe Optimizations (WAS: Compiler Design in C How about it?) cwitty@csli.Stanford.EDU (1990-06-14)
Re: Unsafe Optimizations (WAS: Compiler Design in C How about it?) moss@cs.umass.edu (1990-06-14)
Re: Unsafe Optimizations (WAS: Compiler Design in C How about it?) pardo@june.cs.washington.edu (1990-06-15)
| List of all articles for this month |

Newsgroups: comp.compilers
From: poser@csli.stanford.edu (Bill Poser)
References: <1990Jun4.044255.14857@esegue.segue.boston.ma.us> <1990Jun1.194941.5781@esegue.segue.boston.ma.us> <1990Jun4.212226.18389@esegue.segue.boston.ma.us>
Date: Wed, 6 Jun 90 03:21:45 GMT
Organization: Center for the Study of Language and Information, Stanford U.
Keywords: optimize, C



In article <1990Jun4.212226.18389@esegue.segue.boston.ma.us> larus@spool.cs.wisc.edu writes:
>Some programmers are willing to trade off the semantics of the language (the
>effect of "bad" optimizations) for faster programs.


This misses the point. If you want to define a new version of a language
for parallel execution and specify how the semantics differs from
the sequential version of the language, fine. Then the programmer knows
what he is getting into. The problem with dangerous optimization is that
it changes the semantics behind the programmer's back. Such changes
are known as "errors".


Bill
--


Post a followup to this message

Return to the comp.compilers page.
Search the comp.compilers archives again.