Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site brl-tgr.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!cbdkc1!desoto!cord!bentley!hoxna!houxm!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!brl-tgr!tgr!cottrell@nbs-vms.ARPA
From: cottrell@nbs-vms.ARPA
Newsgroups: net.lang.c
Subject: HLL vs. \"HLL-like\" macro packages
Message-ID: <8051@brl-tgr.ARPA>
Date: Tue, 5-Feb-85 16:20:54 EST
Article-I.D.: brl-tgr.8051
Posted: Tue Feb  5 16:20:54 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 10-Feb-85 03:38:02 EST
Sender: news@brl-tgr.ARPA
Organization: Ballistic Research Lab
Lines: 20

/*
> >> Furthermore, developing macros can make an assembler look more 
> >> structured and introduce some higher-level concepts, but it normally
> >> makes the code produced LESS good than hand coding.
> >
> >If that is true, how can a compiler produce better code than by hand?
> >High level languages are in a sense complex macros. Anyway, your code
> >is probably I/O bound. 
> 
> A compiler can produce better code than a set of HLL-like macros because
> the (any decent) compiler contains an optimizer, which no assembler I'm
> familiar with does.
> 
> 		-- David Dyer-Bennet
> 		-- ...decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-mrvax!ddb

the opti-miser is the programmer. gimme almost any compiler output & i'll
hack a few instruxions off it. gimme the source for that matter & i'll
generate better code than the compiler. dna is awesome!
*/