[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Issue: DEFINE-OPTIMIZER
- To: pierson%mist@MULTIMAX.ARPA
- Subject: Re: Issue: DEFINE-OPTIMIZER
- From: Kent M Pitman <KMP@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
- Date: Thu, 29 Sep 88 12:02 EDT
- Cc: KMP%STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM@MULTIMAX.ARPA, CL-Compiler%sail.stanford.edu@MULTIMAX.ARPA
- In-reply-to: <8809291547.AA21852@mist.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 29 Sep 88 11:47:53 EDT
From: Dan L. Pierson <pierson%mist@multimax.ARPA>
I finally got around to JLM's follow up message which clarified that this
was what he meant. Oh well...
If all you're saying is that people shouldn't write optimizers
on functions they didn't write, I'm happy to stipulate that.
I don't want this facility so that ...
I'm not sure I agree; the following is from a rather old version of
the UMass Amherst GBB sources:
Since I assume you're not disagreeing with my statement of what I want
the facility for. I guess you're saying others might want it for something
I was talking more about adding a style warning saying that the effects
of writing optimizers on functions that you didn't implement may not be
good because optimizers may already exist which you're defeating.
This would leave it in the "unspecified but `harmless'" territory of the
new error terminology Kathy Chapman has been circulating. I'd rather have
it that way than "is an error" so that implementations wouldn't signal
gratuitous errors when you were dissatisfied with their performance and
willing to take your chances with your own optimizations such as in the
code you forwarded.