At 09:58 AM 5/2/2001 -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
>Dan Sugalski writes:
>: I'd really like to get into the details of what is and isn't valid for the
>: optimizer to do, though I expect it's still a little early in the
>: Apocalypse season for that.
>
>Doubtless we'll do as other compilers do, and have a little knob you
>just keep turning up until something breaks, and then you back it off
>a notch and think no more about it.
While I've no doubt we will, given the varied uses that tied, overloaded,
and custom-vtable variables are (or will) get put to, I wouldn't be at all
surprised to find programs that should be compiled will full massive
optimizations but still skip a good portion of them for code operating on
specific variables. Seems to make sense to be able to put an attribute of
some sort on a package to give the compiler a heads up that variables of
that type should be considered the equivalent of C's volatile type.
Dan
--------------------------------------"it's like this"-------------------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
