On Mon Oct 29 18:37:11 EDT 2012, ba...@bitblocks.com wrote: > On Mon, 29 Oct 2012 09:35:00 EDT erik quanstrom <quans...@quanstro.net> > wrote: > > On Mon Oct 29 05:47:10 EDT 2012, dexen.devr...@gmail.com wrote: > > > http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4711346 > > > > > > 9fans says, ``no room in the compiler world for amateurs''. what's your > > > tak > > e > > > on the above fubar? > > > > any sort of "advanced" code-moving optimization is confusing. but the > > way c/c++ are used in linux, bsd & osx, there is a noticable benefit to > > optimizing calls away. it takes smarts to optimize away those recursive > > wrapper macros. so they're in a bit of a pickle. > > It has nothing to do with "how" C/C++ are used in linux, bsd & > osx -- you forgot windows! The C standard allows a lot of > leeway in optimization. Consider this:
my point was that the attitude that every optimization allowed is required is not helpful and is in the end counter productive. actually, to be a bit cute about it, i should announce the first international obfuscated c compiler contest. the goal of the contest is to write a c99-compliant compiler that breaks every program in /sys/src/cmd. the winner will be chosen based on highest percentage of programs broken, with the tie going to the most devious tricks for remaining standards compliant while missing the spirit completely. > > it goes without saying, i think a compiler that largely does what you > > ask it to optimizes the scarce resource: developer time. > > That is a separate issue. actually, i think it *is* the issue. - erik
