Message-ID: <38F70DCD.97B7890E@maths.unine.ch>
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2000 14:23:41 +0200
From: Gautier <gautier DOT demontmollin AT maths DOT unine DOT ch>
Organization: Maths - Uni =?iso-8859-1?Q?Neuch=E2tel?=
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 (Macintosh; I; PPC)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject: Re: inefficiency of GCC output code & -O problem
References: <200004121649 DOT SAA12655 AT acp3bf DOT physik DOT rwth-aachen DOT de> <38F4C0D9 DOT C73A8E0A AT mtu-net DOT ru> <38F5CAF1 DOT 36D13A62 AT maths DOT unine DOT ch> <38F60DE9 DOT E3F9E7DD AT mtu-net DOT ru>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
NNTP-Posting-Host: mac13-32.unine.ch
X-Trace: 14 Apr 2000 14:23:41 +0100, mac13-32.unine.ch
Lines: 18
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com

> > Only the reverse is true: if the source is okay, the
> > program works normally :-)

"Alexei A. Frounze":

> But only if the compiler isn't faulty. :))

Good point. So the definitive version could be:

"If the source is okay and the compiler is perfect,
 the program works normally."

But it could be simplified as a recursive formula where
the source of compiler is mentioned! Ideas ?...

Needless to say that the hypotheses are never fulfilled...
_____________________________________________
Gautier  --  http://members.xoom.com/gdemont/