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