🚀 go-pugleaf

Michael J Zehr wrote:
> I would disagree with this.  The compiler writers should allocate their
> resources to optimize best for the most common code they compile.

True. This is only good business sense.

> 
> If someone wants to obscure what they are doing from the compiler
> (writing a loop with a goto instead of saying what they mean), then

Writing a loop with goto's might be *exactly* what they mean.

Aren't these functionally identical? 

  do
    statement;  
  while (exp);

  label:
    statement;
  if (exp)
    goto label;

If a compiler can't optimize this, I reserve the right to refuse 
to trust it's optimizations on more complex constructs.

> that's their choice.  But they shouldn't expect everyone else who is
> trying to be clear in communicating with the compiler to pay higher
> prices so the compiler writers can allocate more resources to a rare and
> avoidable circumstance.
> 
> It also slows the compilations down in the cases when someone is using a
> goto when it isn't a simple loop they're writing -- the compiler would
> have to check to determine the semantics to see if it could apply its
> optimzations.
> 

Possibly. 
Compilation time is not as big an issue as the correctness of the compiler output.

-- 
Andrew Dalgleish
Senior Software Engineer
Axon Research, Pty Ltd
6 Wallace Ave
Toorak, VIC
3142
AUSTRALIA
Tel:	+61-3-9826-5538
Fax:	+61-3-9824-0083
Email:	andrewd@axonet.com.au