Undelivered mail

[MAILER%ALASKA.BITNET at CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU]

Subject:  Re: I forget what it was originally called.

[Non-Deliverable:  User does not exist or has never logged on]

Reply-To: Info-C at BRL.ARPA

Received: From UWAVM(MAILER) by ALASKA with Jnet id 6928
          for SXJVK at ALASKA; Fri, 11 Mar 88 22:50 AST
Received: by UWAVM (Mailer X1.25) id 4656; Fri, 11 Mar 88 23:50:17 PST
Date:         Thu, 10 Mar 88 19:30:54 GMT
Reply-To:     Info-C at BRL.ARPA
Sender:       Info-C List <INFO-C at NDSUVM1>
Comments:     Warning -- original Sender: tag was netnews at PT.CS.CMU.EDU
From:         Eddie Wyatt <edw at IUS1.CS.CMU.EDU>
Subject:      Re: I forget what it was originally called.
Comments: To: info-c at BRL-SMOKE.arpa
To:           Vic Kapella <SXJVK at ALASKA>

> Which brings me to another question:  How good are compilers these
> day?  Can they optimize just as well as a programmer (without
> resorting to assembly, that is) or not?  For example:
        [common subexpress example deleted]

  All depends on the compiler.  ccp is generally a bad optimizing compiler.
Green Hill gcc and Tartan C compilers are suppose to produce lightening fast
executables.  If I could only get gcc to compile a copy of "man", I
might use it.
--

Eddie Wyatt                 e-mail: edw at ius1.cs.cmu.edu