🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <2236@husc6.harvard.edu> siegel@endor.UUCP (Rich Siegel) writes:
>In article <1629@eds.ericsson.se> rif_xu@eds.ericsson.se writes:

>>	Can anyone tell me why LSC generates so slow (MPW C is nearly 
>>	twice as fast) code ?

>	Because when '881 is turned on, MPW C generates inline FPU
>calls for the functions, and TLSC generates calls to the library routines.

One funny thing, though. LSC isn't what I'd call an "optimizing" compiler.
I don't know if MPW C is, even though we have it here, because I haven't
checked, but here's a piece of code from the LSC compiler:
(...)
MOVE.L (A7)+, D0
MOVE.L D0, $0010(A5)
MOVE.L $0010(A5), -(A7)
(...)

It was after calling GetNewWindow and then calling SetPort. I understand why
it does it that way, the two first instructions were part of the GetNewWindow
and the third a preface to SetPort, but a reasonably smart compiler would have
generated:

MOVE (A7), $0010(A5)

(If this is possible on the 68k, otherwise TWO instructions would sufficed)

Do anyone know of an optimizer for the Macintosh, as I would not like to have
to part with the user IO of LSC (which is why I use it - it's great !)

-- 
 __       Jon W{tte (The dread Smiley Shark) email:h+@nada.kth.se
/  \      (+46 (0) 8 258 268)
   /---   (c) 1989 Yessbox Allright Professional Products Inc. - Y.A.P.P.I.
  /       -- No More --