🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <8445@ihlpb.ATT.COM> nevin1@ihlpb.UUCP (55528-Liber,N.J.) writes:
["optimisation" of multiply when one operand is zero]

>  However, this brings up another question:
>is this truly an optimization?  The way I (used to?) think about
>optimization with respect to execution speed is that
>
>	speed of optimized code >= speed of unoptimized code
>
>for *all instantiations* of a given source statement.  Under this definition,
>things like constant folding, common subexpression elimination, etc., can
>all be considered optimizations.

That's a very good point.  I'm inclined to agree, but I think current
practice is against us.  For example, it is considered an optimisation
to take the CSE out of

	if b1() then x := expression();
	if b2() then y := expression();

even though that costs more when both conditions are false.  Likewise,
compilers cheerfully hoist code out of loops that might be obeyed zero
times.  What do others think?  (Note: I'm aware there are also compiler
correctness issues here, but that's not the point)

Incidentally, I found a great example where constant folding is a
pessimisation (it was on the PE3200), and a colleague found another
on the Mips R2000.  It can be faster on some machines to add two
"short" constants than to load a "long" one, eg on PE3200 this

	x := 12
	y := 12+4

is faster than

	x := 12
	y := 16

Computers are strange creatures.