From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: erik quanstrom <quanstro@quanstro.net>
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2012 19:07:59 -0400
To: 9fans@9fans.net
Message-ID: <623a5d46047a6b47aaeed1186f67e799@brasstown.quanstro.net>
In-Reply-To: <20121029230535.730EFB827@mail.bitblocks.com>
References: <15723310.yIARpoJMSL@coil>
	<4824335454f1b1d47dbc8439b4af8ea3@kw.quanstro.net>
	<20121029223541.8C198B827@mail.bitblocks.com>
	<CAOw7k5hvkWuoD0dLR57Q0xw-6RKJgfHOxD1scdpK48nE_Xuhcw@mail.gmail.com>
	<20121029230535.730EFB827@mail.bitblocks.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [9fans] caveat... optimizer? the `zero and forget' thread on HN
Topicbox-Message-UUID: cc4410ea-ead7-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

On Mon Oct 29 19:06:41 EDT 2012, bakul@bitblocks.com wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Oct 2012 22:47:02 -0000 Charles Forsyth <charles.forsyth@gmail.com>  wrote:
> >
> > He can fool it once, but can he fool it twice? Can he recompile?
>
> Why not.  Compilers never get wise to the ways of sneaky programmers!

feedback-based optimization.

- erik