Date: Mon, 10 May 1999 19:21:05 +0200
From: Felix von Leitner <leitner AT vim DOT org>
To: pgcc AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: Optimization question
Message-ID: <19990510192104.C27542@vim.org>
Mail-Followup-To: pgcc AT delorie DOT com
References: <Pine DOT SOL DOT 3 DOT 96 DOT 990510125208 DOT 12696D-100000 AT ursa DOT cus DOT cam DOT ac DOT uk> <m10gpft-001mHUC AT Dirac DOT Chemie DOT FU-Berlin DOT DE> <14135 DOT 5025 DOT 220697 DOT 966833 AT lrz DOT de>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.5i
In-Reply-To: <14135.5025.220697.966833@lrz.de>; from Eugene Leitl on Mon, May 10, 1999 at 10:14:14AM -0700
Reply-To: pgcc AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: pgcc AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk

Thus spake Eugene Leitl (eugene DOT leitl AT lrz DOT uni-muenchen DOT de):
>  > good compilers should optimize such expressions by itself, the method is
>  > called "common subexpression optimization".
> Historically, this has never worked very well.

Huh?
What makes you claim that?
It works quite good in commercial compilers for >10 years now, what is
your problem with it.  gcc uses it successfully, too.

Felix