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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: fac41,b87849933931bc93
X-Google-Attributes: gidfac41,public
X-Google-Thread: 103376,b87849933931bc93
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: fjh@mundook.cs.mu.OZ.AU (Fergus Henderson)
Subject: Re: What is wrong with OO ?
Date: 1997/01/10
Message-ID: <5b4f6l$aeq@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 208841718
references: <5acjtn$5uj@news3.digex.net> <JSA.97Jan1181506@alexandria>
 <E3I8GL.AuH@research.att.com> <32D11FD3.41C6@wi.leidenuniv.nl>
 <dewar.852772995@merv> <5b2pmn$ntc@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU>
 <32D4FFF2.5D1E@calfp.com>
organization: Comp Sci, University of Melbourne
newsgroups: comp.lang.eiffel,comp.lang.ada
Date: 1997-01-10T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Richie Bielak <richieb@calfp.com> writes:

>Optimizations that require global analysis of all the classes
>of a program at compile time do not work if we need dynamic loading
>of classes at runtime, because adding a new class to a running system
>may invalidate optimizer's assumptions.

True, but there are plenty of cross-module optimizations (such as
cross-module inlining) that require the compiler to use information
from more than one module but don't require analysis of *all* parts of
a program.

--
Fergus Henderson <fjh@cs.mu.oz.au>   |  "I have always known that the pursuit
WWW: <http://www.cs.mu.oz.au/~fjh>   |  of excellence is a lethal habit"
PGP: finger fjh@128.250.37.3         |     -- the last words of T. S. Garp.