From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Anthony Sorace Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0) Message-Id: Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2015 15:31:21 -0500 References: <0962EE36-1765-440C-816F-90DEF0A5720D@me.com> In-Reply-To: <0962EE36-1765-440C-816F-90DEF0A5720D@me.com> To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net> Subject: Re: [9fans] Compiling ken-cc on Linux Topicbox-Message-UUID: 7955c840-ead9-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 Brantley wrote: > One could argue that the Plan 9 C compiler lacks the modern optimizations t= hat the other compilers have. This would be true. But I would argue that alm= ost all of those optimizations are either not needed... Note the "almost all" in there. It's important not to get dogmatic about suc= h things. The argument isn't that kencc is at precisely the perfect point on= the simplicity-vs-optimization spectrum, but that it's pretty darn close, c= loser that known alternatives, and errs on the safer side. Likely there are o= ptimizations or features in newer chipsets that would be worth supporting, b= ut even so: we've got a long way to go before hitting gcc/clang levels.=