It's very positive. Python used to be my favorite programming language, now it's C. I don't code anything in C++ so I don't know, the experience was very negative when I've learnt some of it long time ago but maybe it would be different today.
>>What he, and I, and some small but significant number of others, wish for is that there was a way to write C that will reliably produce the output we envision. The chances that an optimizer will make better code than this is low, whereas the chance that attempts to optimize the code will produce worse code is very high.
Ok, I can definitely see the point. Still it irks me when something as simple as integer overflow is the reason source of rants about UB. I do agree that it would be nice to have some universal way to drop to assembly. I am in probably rare position that I write code which sells because of performance but I am not that good with assembly (the reason is that I am relatively new and work in a niche). That means that optimizer improvements are more important for me than "stick to what is written even if you don't understand it" kind of compiler.
>>. I don't know for sure what it would show, but I'm guessing it would be more of a mixed bag rather than a monotonic improvement.
It could be because programmers fit what they do to the compiler. My approach is to just test a lot of things and leave what sticks so my code is naturally a better fit to a compiler I work with. Still, updating my old GCC to 4.8 was a huge boost in speed and updating to 5.3 recently gave me additional free 4%-5% while compiling faster and offering some new warnings.
It's very positive. Python used to be my favorite programming language, now it's C. I don't code anything in C++ so I don't know, the experience was very negative when I've learnt some of it long time ago but maybe it would be different today.
>>What he, and I, and some small but significant number of others, wish for is that there was a way to write C that will reliably produce the output we envision. The chances that an optimizer will make better code than this is low, whereas the chance that attempts to optimize the code will produce worse code is very high.
Ok, I can definitely see the point. Still it irks me when something as simple as integer overflow is the reason source of rants about UB. I do agree that it would be nice to have some universal way to drop to assembly. I am in probably rare position that I write code which sells because of performance but I am not that good with assembly (the reason is that I am relatively new and work in a niche). That means that optimizer improvements are more important for me than "stick to what is written even if you don't understand it" kind of compiler.
>>. I don't know for sure what it would show, but I'm guessing it would be more of a mixed bag rather than a monotonic improvement.
It could be because programmers fit what they do to the compiler. My approach is to just test a lot of things and leave what sticks so my code is naturally a better fit to a compiler I work with. Still, updating my old GCC to 4.8 was a huge boost in speed and updating to 5.3 recently gave me additional free 4%-5% while compiling faster and offering some new warnings.