From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Lucio De Re <lucio@proxima.alt.za>
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] GUI toolkit for Plan 9
Message-ID: <20020227131002.P26250@cackle.proxima.alt.za>
References: <200202271057.g1RAvwP04607@cbe.ericsson.se>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
In-Reply-To: <200202271057.g1RAvwP04607@cbe.ericsson.se>; from Bengt Kleberg on Wed, Feb 27, 2002 at 11:57:58AM +0100
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 13:10:03 +0200
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 581e1394-eaca-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025

On Wed, Feb 27, 2002 at 11:57:58AM +0100, Bengt Kleberg wrote:
> > 
> > presotto@plan9.bell-labs.com writes:
> > 
> > > However, it seems to be an accepted consequence amongst compiler
> > > writers to trade off _possible_ incorrect code generation against
> > > _probable_ speed gains.
> > 
[ Thomas Bushnell quote adding nothing to the above :-) ]
> 
> I have added _ to emphasize two words that makes the idea clearer. Ie,
> it not a question of generating incorrect code, but generating code
> that might be incorrect (you know: hard to debug/test for all possible
> circumstances...).
> 
I would have used "potential" in the first position, specially as
chips keep changing, I watch in dismay as the binutils mailing lists
tries to follow the ARM and MIPS architecture variations saga :-)

In the second position, I would prefer "likely" because I'm of the
opinion that those who invest in optimisation have a clear-ish idea of
the objectives they are trying to achieve.  That these objectives are
short-lived is hardly their fault :-)

++L