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,
	MSGID_SHORT,REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
	version=3.4.4
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!actnyc!djs
From: djs@actnyc.UUCP (Dave Seward)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: optimizating compilers (VMS ADA)
Message-ID: <671@actnyc.UUCP>
Date: 28 Jan 88 23:49:14 GMT
References: <8801201714.AA15107@ajpo.sei.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: djs@actnyc.UUCP (Dave Seward)
Organization: InterACT Corporation
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <8801201714.AA15107@ajpo.sei.cmu.edu> TENE@TECHMAX.BITNET writes:
>In reply to Norman Cohen:
>
>>Noam Tene appears to be claiming that an optimizing compiler is free to
>>change the meaning of a program in order to achieve faster execution.
>>This is a dangerous attitude.
>
>I agree. It is dangerous and as you pointed out can be taken to an
>extreme. However I claim that ANY optimization that goes beyond "Good
>code" generation must have such freedoms and could introduce these
>dangers.

As an Ada compiler developer, I am of course very interested in this issue.
I personally side with Mr Cohen on this issue, but I must produce a product
that satisfys a marketplace, *as well as being validated*. I would, therefore
appreciate feedback (e-mail) from as wide an audience as possible, indicating
opinions about this issue. I can summarize the responses for this group, if
desired. Thanks, in advance...

Dave Seward
uunet!actnyc!djs