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=-0.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_DATE,
	MSGID_SHORT autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!mit-eddie!ll-xn!ames!aurora!labrea!decwrl!decvax!gsg!segedy
From: segedy@gsg.UUCP (Catherine Segedy)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: optimizers
Message-ID: <111@gsg.UUCP>
Date: 18 Jan 88 22:27:15 GMT
Organization: General Systems Group, Inc., Salem, NH
Keywords: optimizers, size, speed
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Hi there.  Due to the discussion of optimizers which is currently going on
in this group, I'd like to put in my 2 cents worth.  My own opinion is that
there are a few reasons to optimize:
	size vs speed (one way is faster, one takes up more room)
	removing debugging information when you are done debugging (ie strip)
	compiler slow-down (when the optimized code might take the compiler
				a relatively long time to execute, you might
				get it only when requested)
the functionality of the code produced should be the same!  The very word
'optimize' conotates thoughts of 'make better' 'make more efficient', not
things like 'change what happens'

I have had plenty of problems with compilers (although not ada ones) which
have done some really flakey things on the grounds of 'optimization'.  In
fact there are certain optimizations which some compilers do automatically
which I think should only be done if asked for -- for instance, removing code
that is not called, and removing un-referenced variables.  Maybe they should
be flagged, but not removed.
(sorry, I think I'm getting a little 'preachy' here.)
					cathy segedy, GSG
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
decvax!gsg!segedy      harvard!gsg!segedy
my opinions are my own, in my opinion
I am not a liberated woman because I've always been free