|Re: Thompson's Plan 9 C compiler firstname.lastname@example.org (1991-08-12)|
|Re: Thompson's Plan 9 C compiler email@example.com (1991-08-13)|
|Re: Thompson's Plan 9 C compiler firstname.lastname@example.org (1991-08-13)|
|Re: Thompson's Plan 9 C compiler email@example.com (1991-08-13)|
|Re: Thompson's Plan 9 C compiler firstname.lastname@example.org (1991-08-14)|
|Re: Thompson's Plan 9 C compiler email@example.com.COM (1991-08-15)|
|Re: Thompson's Plan 9 C compiler firstname.lastname@example.org (1991-08-16)|
|Re: Thompson's Plan 9 C compiler email@example.com (1991-08-20)|
|From:||firstname.lastname@example.org (bill davidsen)|
|Organization:||GE Corp R&D Center, Schenectady NY|
|Date:||13 Aug 91 13:01:00 GMT|
[From comp.arch -John]
In article <20167@helios.TAMU.EDU> email@example.com (Byron Rakitzis) writes:
| I also recommend ftp'ing this paper. I don't think Ken's work is the last
| word in compilers, merely a testament to sound programming principles, and
| to the fact that current Unix vendors' compilers are a crock.
An overstatement, I think. Optimizing compilers are not going to produce as
much improvement on well written code as they will on student first attempts,
because the common subexpressions have be done in source, the invariant stuff
is out of loops, the loops are unrolled, the register type has been used here
and there... all by a one pass code generator called a programmer.
But there are a lot more bad programs than good, and I don't think that
current compilers are unjustified. They serve the needs of the average
programmer, and the employer of that programmer, who buys the compiler based
on performance on the buyer's code.
bill davidsen (firstname.lastname@example.org.GE.COM -or- uunet!crdgw1!crdos1!davidsen)
GE Corp R&D Center, Information Systems Operation, tech support group
Moderator comp.binaries.ibm.pc and 386-users digest.
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.