value range propagation for _bitwise_ OR

["Jérôme M. Berger"]

Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
> In my opinion?  Yes, slower compilers that make code easier to write are
> better.  I don't spend lots of time compiling, I spend it writing code. 
> And I don't need to babysit the compiler, it goes off and does its thing.
> 
> Performance is only important in the end result.  I'm not saying I want
> my compiler to be slow, but I want it to be accurate and useful more
> than I want it to be quick.  In this case, there is a quick and fully
> accurate solution, so it doesn't matter.  But, for instance, if the
> compiler could do a full analysis to check if variables escape their
> scope, and that makes the compiler 5x slower, then I'd rather have the
> compiler verify my work instead of quickly producing memory-corrupting
> code.
> 
	This is why there are static verification tools. I'm all in favor
of this kind of tools, but I don't want to have to put up with their
slowness every time I compile something. Having a quick
write-compile-test cycle is very important IMO. Then when I have a
rough outline of the program, I can run another tool (or adding a
command line option) to enable extra checking (and then it doesn't
matter if the tool takes the whole night to run and I get the
results the next morning when I get to work).

		Jerome
-- 
mailto:jeberger at free.fr
http://jeberger.free.fr
Jabber: jeberger at jabber.fr

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.puremagic.com/pipermail/digitalmars-d/attachments/20100413/c02e2a9d/attachment.pgp>