low level optimization

[Rob Carriere]

In article <22687 at lanl.gov> jlg at cochiti.lanl.gov (Jim Giles) writes:
!Yes, and I've already pointed out that this still relies on the 
!_loader_ (or some post-translation tool) to make the actual decisions
!about what optimizations to use.  Since I assume that you read less
!selectively than you answer, I won't repeat the discussion.

Good.  It would have been totally irrelevant.  I do, however, want to
apologize about the selective reading gibe.  Your answer to the post I was
refering to got here out of sequence (to use an understatement).  I should
have realized that USENET will occasionally do such wonderful things.

!No, I didn't.  I started this discussion by saying that C _isn't_
!optimized as well as Fortran since you need IM analysis for that 
!and the standard doesn't allow such things in the _translator_ and
!_no_ C implementation I've ever seen has the _loader_ (or any post-
!translation tool) do the job.  Only _one_ C implementation has been
!brought to my attention which does IM analysis _at_all_.  This is 
!the MIPS C compiler, which does IM analysis in a non-standard way
!by requiring dependent compilation.  Since I don't have access to
!the MIPS compiler, this info is of only academic interest.

Ah.  My mistake.  I thought you were talking about C.  What, pray tell, is a
discussion about compilers doing in comp.lang.c?

SR
---