[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Issue: DEFINE-OPTIMIZER
- To: "Dan L. Pierson" <pierson%mist@multimax.ARPA>
- Subject: Re: Issue: DEFINE-OPTIMIZER
- From: David N Gray <Gray@DSG.csc.ti.com>
- Date: Thu, 29 Sep 88 17:31:02 CDT
- Cc: Kent M Pitman <KMP@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>, CL-Compiler@sail.stanford.edu
- In-reply-to: Msg of Thu, 29 Sep 88 11:47:53 EDT from Dan L. Pierson <pierson%mist@multimax.ARPA>
- Sender: GRAY@Kelvin.csc.ti.com
> I'm not sure I agree; the following is from a rather old version of
> the UMass Amherst GBB sources:
>
> ;;; - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> ;;;
> ;;; Compiler optimizers to change some sequence functions that use keyword
> ;;; arguments to version that don't. GBB calls these functions quite a bit
> ;;; and runtime analysis of the keywords was taking 25% of the runtime.
> ;;;
> ;;; 05-27-86 File Created. (GALLAGHER)
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> There follows what I think is Explorer-specific code to optimize FIND,
> POSITION, and ASSOC.
If so, that code became obsolete with release 3.0 (in 1987) since the
compiler now takes care of optimizing those. Thus this serves to
illustrate the risk of user-optimization of system functions.