From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: ** X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_05,INVALID_DATE, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!purdue!umd5!mimsy!dday From: dday@mimsy.UUCP (Dennis Doubleday) Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: optimizating compilers (VMS ADA) Message-ID: <10289@mimsy.UUCP> Date: 21 Jan 88 21:18:29 GMT References: <8801201714.AA15107@ajpo.sei.cmu.edu> Reply-To: dday@mimsy.UUCP (Dennis Doubleday) Organization: U of Maryland, Dept. of Computer Science, Coll. Pk., MD 20742 List-Id: In article <8801201714.AA15107@ajpo.sei.cmu.edu> TENE@TECHMAX.BITNET writes: >Once again, the VAX ADA compiler does NOT do these by default, ONLY >when you ask it to optimize. >... >If you want such a program to work DON'T use an optimizer on it. > The user made that promise when he compiled with >an OPTIMIZE qualifier which is not the default... I don't really think that this is a convincing argument. I agree completely with Mr. Cohen and Mr. Firth that an optimizer should not change the meaning of a program. To allow otherwise is to allow any sort of dubious "optimization" that improves a program's time or space usage while introducing unintended and unpredictable consequences. In any event, Mr. Tene, your claim is flatly wrong: page A-21 of DEC's publication "Developing Ada Programs on VAX VMS" says : "By default, the COMPILE command applies full optimimization..." -- UUCP: seismo!mimsy!dday Dennis Doubleday CSNet: dday@mimsy University of Maryland ARPA: dday@mimsy.umd.edu College Park, MD 20742 Fan of: Chicago Cubs, Chicago Bears, OU Sooners (301) 454-6154