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! */