Newsgroups: | comp.compilers |
From: | tli@%phakt.usc.edu (Tony Li) |
References: | <1990Jun1.194941.5781@esegue.segue.boston.ma.us> <1990Jun4.212226.18389@esegue.segue.boston.ma.us> <1990Jun7.010349.2097@esegue.segue.boston.ma.us> |
Date: | Thu, 7 Jun 90 19:03:15 GMT |
Organization: | University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA |
Keywords: | optimize, parallel |
In article <1990Jun7.010349.2097@esegue.segue.boston.ma.us> larus@primost.cs.wisc.edu (James Larus) writes:
Although parallel prefix may produce a different result, which is
right and which is wrong?
That depends. If the semantics of the language specifies an order of
evaluation, then a "correct" compiler must implement that order of evaluation.
If your optimizer does something different then it is either a) broken, or b)
implementing a different semantics, which is a different language. If you
claim that your compiler correctly implements language X and you choose option
b, then you mislead your customers. You may claim that your compiler
implements extensions to language X, but if you do so, I would expect the
manual to describe the differences clearly. For example, I would expect that
your optimizer switch would tell me in big, blinking red letters that it
introduces nonstandard semantics.
Tony Li - USC Computer Science Department
Internet: tli@usc.edu Uucp: usc!tli
--
Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.