Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site allegra.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!alan
From: alan@allegra.UUCP (Alan S. Driscoll)
Newsgroups: net.lang.c
Subject: Re: C "neatener" - another example (#9)
Message-ID: <2335@allegra.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 5-Mar-84 11:03:37 EST
Article-I.D.: allegra.2335
Posted: Mon Mar  5 11:03:37 1984
Date-Received: Tue, 6-Mar-84 02:45:22 EST
References: mi-cec.212 <252@idis.UUCP>, <228@astrovax.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill
Lines: 21

> Maybe I'm missing something but I thought the whole point was not comparing
> the two languages C vs. BLISS but to show that the "standard" BSD / USG C
> compiler optimizes inadequately.

> Personnally I can understand why the Fortran compiler is an embarrasement,
> considering the attitude in this community toward Fortran.  However, I
> cannot understand why Unix does not come with a super-optimizing C compiler,
> as any increase in the speed of the code produced will speed up all of Unix.
> Surely by now better could be done.
> -- 
> Bill Sebok			Princeton University, Astrophysics
> {allegra,akgua,burl,cbosgd,decvax,ihnp4,kpno,princeton,vax135}!astrovax!wls


Yes, but have you ever heard of a Portable Bliss Compiler?  The effort has
simply been in different directions.

-- 

	Alan S. Driscoll
	AT&T Bell Laboratories