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!utcsrgv!garfield!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!hao!cires!nbires!opus!rcd From: rcd@opus.UUCP (Dick Dunn) Newsgroups: net.unix-wizards,net.lang Subject: Re: smart compilers Message-ID: <1001@opus.UUCP> Date: Mon, 24-Dec-84 17:54:17 EST Article-I.D.: opus.1001 Posted: Mon Dec 24 17:54:17 1984 Date-Received: Wed, 26-Dec-84 04:41:34 EST References: <6599@brl-tgr.ARPA> <979@opus.UUCP> <6831@watdaisy.UUCP> Organization: NBI,Inc, Boulder CO Lines: 17 >...It is usually necessary for optimizations to break certain obscure points > that conform to the language definition, e.g. which order STATEMENTS are > executed in so that code can be moved out of loops. Many useful optimizations > cannot be done when more than 99.9% of the language definition must be > respected. Or, rephrasing the above ">", sometimes you get: The optimization was a success, but the program died. I can't see this is anything other than a conflict resulting from either a bad (or simply incomplete) language definition or a broken compiler. But then I've always had trouble dealing with compromises between efficiency and correctness. -- Dick Dunn {hao,ucbvax,allegra}!nbires!rcd (303)444-5710 x3086 ...Nothing left to do but smile, smile, smile.