Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2002 03:36:26 -0700 From: David Schultz <dschultz@uclink.Berkeley.EDU> To: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> Cc: current@FreeBSD.ORG, Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com> Subject: Re: -current results (was something funny with soft updates?) Message-ID: <20020703103626.GA896@HAL9000.wox.org> In-Reply-To: <3D224182.BFE8CF22@mindspring.com> References: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0206281233500.75410-100000@InterJet.elischer.org> <200207020314.g623Eke5038019@apollo.backplane.com> <20020702164756.E70767@dragon.nuxi.com> <3D224182.BFE8CF22@mindspring.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Thus spake Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com>: > Personally, I prefer knowing my code should work before giving > it to the compiler, rather than using the compiler to think > about things I'm too lazy/incapable of thinking of on my own. > Given that, I would always favor a trade for faster run time > and slower compile time. Error checking can be a good thing, but then there's... javac: Variable MIGHT have been used uninitialized. I don't really know because I can't do dataflow analysis, but I will refuse to compile until you change your code. On the topic of good commercial compilers, I always liked the old versions of Borland TurboC (later BorlandC). They generated compact, efficient code with a number of reasonable optimizations. (I suppose that isn't hard when your target platforms range from the 8086 to the 80386.) For the record, TurboC 1.0 on an 8088 is roughly half as fast as GCC 2.95 on a 450MHz Pentium 3. ``For every change in hardware capacity, there is an equal and opposite change in software efficiency.'' To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020703103626.GA896>