From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Sam <sah@softcardsystems.com>
To: <9fans@cse.psu.edu>
Subject: Re: [9fans] how to avoid a memset() optimization
In-Reply-To: <3DD35C73.8090404@null.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.30.0211140803070.9338-100000@athena>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 08:20:24 -0500
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 1f1e2592-eacb-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025

> Do you really want the compiler to always generate code
> 	MOV	R1,#0
> 	MOV	R2,#0
> 	AND	R2,R1
> 	MOV	R2,X(SP)

Yes, yes, and yes.  Optimizations which intelligently manage
register allocation are about as far as *I* appreciate.  Do
precisely what I say, and no less.  If I write poor code,
boo hoo for me.  Heavily optimizing compilers will *never*
make all coders equal and generally cause more headaches
than they're worth.

I do appreciate some warnings (ie if I forget to initialize
a variable to zero before I use it), but some of them are
just irritating.  Brantley looked over my shoulder a while
back and wondered why I was typing:

	if((m=fn())) {
		...
	}

saying, "what's with the extra parenthesis?"  "Oh, gcc complains
that I should surround assignment values used as a truth statement
and I've just incorporated it by habit to shut it up."

I hadn't even realized I was permitting gcc to define my style.
In essence, by permitting mad optimizations and then having to
do backflips just to keep the compiler from optimizing away
our real intentions, we're doing the same thing.  I hardly see
this as useful.

Cheers,

Sam