Re: [9fans] GUI toolkit for Plan 9

[presotto@plan9.bell-labs.com]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 527 bytes --]

No, it's not really the same.  I've had odd performance changes
when garbage collectors decide to do their thing.  However, they've
never made correct code not work.  However, it seems to be an
accepted consequence amongst compiler writers to trade off
possible incorrect code generation against probable speed
gains.  I've been burned numerous times by upping the optimization
level in compilers including gcc.  This is not a new development.
It was just as true 30 years ago with the fortran and PL1 compilers
I used.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: message/rfc822, Size: 2024 bytes --]

From: "Thomas Bushnell, BSG" <tb+usenet@becket.net>
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] GUI toolkit for Plan 9
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 17:13:14 GMT
Message-ID: <87664kgoie.fsf@becket.becket.net>

rob@plan9.bell-labs.com (rob pike) writes:

> Ten percent buys you, what, a couple of weeks of Moore's Law?  I'm not
> against fast compilers - I'm actually rather impressed by good
> compilers - but I do fret about optimizing compilers breaking my code.

Oh, of course, but that's a matter of writing correct code.

Your concern reminds me of people who are scared of garbage collection
because they think it will have a bug and free live memory.