Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site umcp-cs.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!floyd!harpo!seismo!rlgvax!cvl!umcp-cs!chris
From: chris@umcp-cs.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.lang.c
Subject: Re: more on C optimization
Message-ID: <5927@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 15-Mar-84 01:17:34 EST
Article-I.D.: umcp-cs.5927
Posted: Thu Mar 15 01:17:34 1984
Date-Received: Fri, 16-Mar-84 00:28:16 EST
References: <86@eneevax.UUCP>
Organization: Univ. of Maryland, Computer Science Dept.
Lines: 23

All right, how come no one has replied yet???  I posted something
a while ago about something /lib/c2 did that was "neat", namely,
change

	movl	$7,r11
	...
	bicl3	$-256,r11,r1

into

	movl	$7,r11
	...
	extzv	$0,r11,r11,r1	# look closely now

(instead of "extzv $0,$7,r11,r1").  If you just think for a minute,
the "extzv" is unnecessary in the first place!  If c2 does limited
flow analysis to watch over register contents, how come it doesn't
eliminate instructions that are effectively no-ops?  (That's a
rhetorical question, by the way.)
-- 
In-Real-Life: Chris Torek, Univ of MD Comp Sci
UUCP:	{seismo,allegra,brl-bmd}!umcp-cs!chris
CSNet:	chris@umcp-cs		ARPA:	chris.umcp-cs@CSNet-Relay