Re: Alpha problems...
On 13-Jan-1998 15:53:21, Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca> wrote:
> There were some kernel bugs and some egcs bugs. Specifically egcs would
> overoptimize and ignore the volitial keyword and generate very optimal
> code that caused some thing to be in the wrong order..
If it ignores 'volatile' and causes things to happen in the wrong order,
then the appropriate adjective is not 'very optimal', it is 'broken'.
> I don't think many user space things would suffer from overoptimization!
There's no such thing as 'overoptimized': only 'optimized' and 'wrong'.
(I'm not slamming on egcc, by the way; I'm sure nobody *chose* to
ignore 'volatile'. I just think the phrase "ignore the volatile keyword
and generate very optimal" is funny as hell. Just imagine the kind of
optimization you could get by ignoring the keyword 'for'!)
steveg
--
Steve Greenland
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org .
Trouble? e-mail to templin@bucknell.edu .
Reply to: