Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/17/84; site opus.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!godot!harvard!seismo!hao!cires!nbires!opus!rcd
From: rcd@opus.UUCP (Dick Dunn)
Newsgroups: net.unix-wizards,net.lang
Subject: Re: smart compilers
Message-ID: <973@opus.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 14-Dec-84 00:37:06 EST
Article-I.D.: opus.973
Posted: Fri Dec 14 00:37:06 1984
Date-Received: Sun, 16-Dec-84 05:10:34 EST
References: <783@enea.UUCP> <479@sftig.UUCP>
Organization: NBI,Inc, Boulder CO
Lines: 16
Xref: watmath net.unix-wizards:11066 net.lang:1137

> I don't understand why people would consider a compiler "smart"
> if it were to replace the two nested empty 'for' loops with assignments
> of the loop variables.  I prefer a compiler to do the expected -- what
> I told it to do.  These kinds of 'optimizations' can make programming a pain
> in the neck...

I agree with this sentiment--but realize that it's as much wrapped up in
language design as in compiler implementation.  Languages such as C (and a
VERY few others) allow you sufficient capability to say just what you want
done that the attitude above makes sense.  On the other side, consider a
FORTRAN compiler for a vector machine.   FORTRAN is so crippled in terms of
being able to express what's "really going on" in its problem domain that
a decent (let alone smart) compiler has to do a lot of optimization.
-- 
Dick Dunn	{hao,ucbvax,allegra}!nbires!rcd		(303)444-5710 x3086
   ...Are you making this up as you go along?