Re: Order of argument evaluation in C++, etc.

hbaker@netcom.com (Henry Baker)
Wed, 23 Aug 1995 16:46:08 GMT

          From comp.compilers
Related articles
[33 earlier articles]
Re: Order of argument evaluation in C++, etc. chase@centerline.com (1995-08-21)
Re: Order of argument evaluation in C++, etc. bobduff@world.std.com (1995-08-21)
Re: Order of argument evaluation in C++, etc. jan@neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de (1995-08-21)
Re: Order of argument evaluation in C++, etc. bill@amber.ssd.hcsc.com (1995-08-21)
Re: Order of argument evaluation in C++, etc. burley@gnu.ai.mit.edu (1995-08-23)
Re: Order of argument evaluation in C++, etc. jthill@netcom.com (1995-08-24)
Re: Order of argument evaluation in C++, etc. hbaker@netcom.com (1995-08-23)
Re: Order of argument evaluation in C++, etc. way@cis.udel.edu (Thomas Way) (1995-08-23)
Re: Order of argument evaluation in C++, etc. jmccarty@spdmail.spd.dsccc.com (1995-08-24)
Re: Order of argument evaluation in C++, etc. daniels@cse.ogi.edu (1995-08-24)
Re: Order of argument evaluation in C++, etc. pardo@cs.washington.edu (1995-08-25)
Re: Order of argument evaluation in C++, etc. hbaker@netcom.com (1995-08-25)
Re: Order of argument evaluation in C++, etc. jan@neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de (1995-08-25)
[3 later articles]
| List of all articles for this month |
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
From: hbaker@netcom.com (Henry Baker)
Keywords: optimize, C, C++
Organization: nil organization
References: 95-08-067 95-08-146
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 1995 16:46:08 GMT

chase@centerline.com (David Chase) wrote:


> I'm also a little amazed to be encountering such resistance to a
> well-defined order of evaluation in this decade.
[snip]
> You'd think that
> this sort of thing was REALLY IMPORTANT, much more than some
> apparently insignificant, sometimes-used, never-measured option to
> optimize code.


Well, both speed and reproducibility are important in a compiler,
just like sexuality and reliability are both important in a spouse.
The speed of a compiler and the sexuality in a spouse get you
interested, but the reproducibility and reliability are what convince
you to keep them.


The up-and-coming compilers/languages/hardware keep trying to seduce
those more-or-less-happily-married-to-some-other
compiler/language/hardware with _speed_. I can't recall a single new
language/compiler/etc. that tried to seduce me with reliability --
probably because their sponsors knew they weren't reliable!


--
www/ftp directory:
ftp://ftp.netcom.com/pub/hb/hbaker/home.html
--

Post a followup to this message

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