Article View: gnu.gcc.bug
Article #1838Re: GCC 1.30 complaints
From: James Van Artsdalen
Date: Mon, 24 Oct 1988 00:42
Date: Mon, 24 Oct 1988 00:42
15 lines
1333 bytes
1333 bytes
In <1531@vaxnix.tandy.COM>, ron@vaxnix.tandy.COM (Ron Light) wrote: > I would find it sheer lunacy to have that loop eliminated in favor of > a=100. That type of loop is used QUITE often for DELAY loops. Try > writing a driver sometime where you need a delay loop, and see what > happens when "a=100" is all that's generated with no delay. Surely you don't seriously expect that kind of loop to work? Good Lord, even if you figure out the right constants for a particular compiler on a particular machine, what happens when Tandy builds a 33MHz 386, or GNU C v2.0 generates code twice as good as v1.30, or you switch to some other compiler or CPU altogether? -- James R. Van Artsdalen james@bigtex.cactus.org "Live Free or Die" Home: 512-346-2444 Work: 338-8789 9505 Arboretum Blvd Austin TX 78759
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<9773@bigtex.cactus.org>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!uunet!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!bloom-beacon!mit-eddie!killer!texbell!bigtex!jamesReferences:
<8810220131.AA00312@ucsci.ucsc.edu> <1531@vaxnix.tandy.COM>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!uunet!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!bloom-beacon!mit-eddie!killer!texbell!bigtex!james From: james@bigtex.cactus.org (James Van Artsdalen) Newsgroups: gnu.gcc.bug Subject: Re: GCC 1.30 complaints Message-ID: <9773@bigtex.cactus.org> Date: 24 Oct 88 00:42:11 GMT References: <8810220131.AA00312@ucsci.ucsc.edu> <1531@vaxnix.tandy.COM> Reply-To: james@bigtex.cactus.org (James Van Artsdalen) Distribution: gnu Organization: Dell Computer Co, Austin TX Lines: 15