From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Matt H To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu Subject: Re: [9fans] compilers - was GUI toolkit for Plan 9 Message-Id: <20020226213451.56e87b33.matt@proweb.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <181b9e858518e43368953c1050365780@plan9.bell-labs.com> References: <181b9e858518e43368953c1050365780@plan9.bell-labs.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 21:34:51 +0000 Topicbox-Message-UUID: 5774f0e8-eaca-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025 Okay, I'm no compiler writer or even very proficient C coder but all this talk of turning optimizations off concerns me. Not because of the threat of "badly" generated code but because the chip makers (well Intel is the only one I really read about) are pushing the responsibility for optimization out of the silicon and into the compiler. (providing I understand what I read!) In my minimal contact with C I've regarded optimizations with scorn, because like disk compression schemes a lá DoubleSpace, my first encounters were tainted by failure. All optimizations did then (MS C ver 3 on win3.1 i think) was crash quickly. Does anybody know how runtime optimizations such as those in the Crusoe chip fair at this? If optimization is tricky at compile time sounds like doing it at runtime must be hairy. Has anyone even tried to run plan9 on a Crusoe? M