This is correct. One of the more notable examples is for the Alpha. The
Digital c89 compiler produces code through an optimizer. Then the
assembler does peephole optimization. And then the linker does global dead
code removal. All it means is that the days of writing tight hand coded
assembler is long gone :-)
We wrote a compiler for Alpha a few years ago. We just decided to disable
the assembler optimizations so we could get a semblence of control back.
--
-Time flies like the wind. Fruit flies like a banana. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Stranger things have happened but none stranger than this. Steven W. Orr-
Does your driver's license say Organ Donor?Black holes are where God \
-------divided by zero. Listen to me! We are all individuals!---------
On Thu, 6 Apr 2000, Jerry Feldman wrote:
=>On 6 Apr 2000, at 11:30, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
=>> Some c compilers will evaluate anything they can get their algorithms
=>> on, at compile time. Some even interpret do loops, etc. if the
=>
=>It's even worse than that. Not only do the compilers optimize very
=>aggressively, but there is code reordering that is performed on the
=>instruction stream. The code reordering reorders instructions based on
=>the processor model. Then there is link-time optimizations. By the time
=>the executable pops out it hardly resembles what the origial programmer
=>wrote. Even some assemblers do a bit of optimizing.
=>--
=>Jerry Feldman
=>Contractor, eInfrastructure Partner Engineering
=>508-467-4315 http://www.testdrive.compaq.com/linux/
=>
=>Compaq Computer Corp.
=>200 Forest Street MRO1-3/F1
=>Marlboro, Ma. 01752
**********************************************************
To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] with the following text in the
*body* (*not* the subject line) of the letter:
unsubscribe gnhlug
**********************************************************
