Brantley wrote: > One could argue that the Plan 9 C compiler lacks the modern optimizations > that the other compilers have. This would be true. But I would argue that > almost all of those optimizations are either not needed...
Note the "almost all" in there. It's important not to get dogmatic about such things. The argument isn't that kencc is at precisely the perfect point on the simplicity-vs-optimization spectrum, but that it's pretty darn close, closer that known alternatives, and errs on the safer side. Likely there are optimizations or features in newer chipsets that would be worth supporting, but even so: we've got a long way to go before hitting gcc/clang levels.
