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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,2ac7208e3d69354f X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-06-18 12:14:09 PST Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!nntp.abs.net!uunet!dca.uu.net!ash.uu.net!world!news From: Robert A Duff Subject: Re: Ada and vectorization Sender: news@world.std.com (Mr Usenet Himself) Message-ID: Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2002 19:13:28 GMT References: NNTP-Posting-Host: shell01.theworld.com Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.7 Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:26284 Date: 2002-06-18T19:13:28+00:00 List-Id: Matthias Kretschmer writes: > maybe cheaper, but let me cite Dijkstra: "Are you quite sure that all those > bells and whistles, all those wonderful facilities of your so-called > powerful programming languages belong to the solution set rather than to > the problem set?" Buggy optimizers are part of my problem set, too. You're probably right in this case, but surely in *some* cases, it is appropriate to let the programmer give the compiler hints about how to optimize. The compiler is still doing the error-prone part (deciding whether the optimization is correct, and actually performing the transformation). The programmer is merely suggesting that the optimization is worthwhile. - Bob