From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-Id: <200211141857.SAA01742@localhost.localdomain> To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu Subject: Re: [9fans] how to avoid a memset() optimization In-Reply-To: Message from Boyd Roberts of "Thu, 14 Nov 2002 16:26:08 +0100." <3DD3C090.9010605@strakt.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Steve Kilbane Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 18:57:46 +0000 Topicbox-Message-UUID: 207e5f56-eacb-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025 > I'd rather have slow and right over fast and broken. Others have different opinions. There are several issues here. 1. Some people want near-to-optimal code for the machine they've chosen (slower code means faster machine needed, means higher price, means fewer sales), and they want it soon (before their competitors get all the market share). The economics of those markets mean they need optimizing compilers. Vendors are happy to fill that need. 2. The language is being used for two different purposes: expressing an abstract algorithm, and controlling the machine. These conflict. 3. There's a scary number of people out there who don't understand the language they're using, and define it in terms of "Microsoft gets it right," or "gcc does it properly", without realising they've just been lucky. Their code can break from one compiler to another, without having to optimize it. Optimizers just make it more obvious. steve