Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site astrovax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!vaxine!wjh12!genrad!grkermit!masscomp!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!princeton!astrovax!wls
From: wls@astrovax.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.lang.c
Subject: Re: C "neatener" - another example (#9)
Message-ID: <228@astrovax.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 4-Mar-84 23:50:26 EST
Article-I.D.: astrovax.228
Posted: Sun Mar  4 23:50:26 1984
Date-Received: Tue, 6-Mar-84 01:01:20 EST
References: mi-cec.212 <252@idis.UUCP>
Organization: Princeton Univ. Astrophysics
Lines: 16

> I do not understand the point of this.
> Your examples are not comparing the C language
> to the Bliss-32 (or Common Bliss) language.

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