Re: Optimizing Across && And ||

cdg@nullstone.com (Christopher Glaeser)
Mon, 20 Mar 1995 22:12:26 GMT

          From comp.compilers
Related articles
[10 earlier articles]
Re: Optimizing Across && And || ryg@summit.novell.com (1995-03-03)
Re: Optimizing Across && And || leichter@zodiac.rutgers.edu (1995-03-07)
Re: Optimizing Across && And || preston@tera.com (1995-03-08)
Re: Optimizing Across && And || pardo@cs.washington.edu (1995-03-13)
Re: Optimizing Across && And || chase@centerline.com (1995-03-14)
Re: Optimizing Across && And || jqb@netcom.com (1995-03-15)
Re: Optimizing Across && And || cdg@nullstone.com (1995-03-20)
Re: Optimizing Across && And || daniels@cse.ogi.edu (1995-03-21)
Re: Optimizing Across && And || bill@amber.ssd.hcsc.com (1995-04-03)
| List of all articles for this month |
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
From: cdg@nullstone.com (Christopher Glaeser)
Keywords: C, optimize
Organization: Compilers Central
References: 95-03-089
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 1995 22:12:26 GMT

Jim Balter <uunet!netcom.com!jqb> wrote:
> It is true that properly written programs shouldn't contain dead code.


The term "properly written program" is quite subjective, making it difficult
to debate this point. However, I have seen examples of programs that I
considered to be extremely well written that contained dead code.


Some programs such as mission-critical embedded applications make extensive
use of assertions to handle error conditions which, in theory, should never
occur. This coding style is sometimes used with the knowledge that the
compiler will *prove* the assertion and delete the dead code.


Macro expansion, function inline expansion, and many other optimizations
can also expose dead code in a "properly" (i.e. well) written program.


Best regards,
Christopher Glaeser cdg@nullstone.com
Nullstone Corporation (800) 995-2841


--

Post a followup to this message

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