> Though for the code samples in the OP, it's not so much that
> optimisations are disabled, but that unoptimisations are enabled!

I think the problem in the original example given is that the compiler is 
using generic assignment code that could be using any register as a source, 
as well as the possibility of a literal (which is what the example does) and 
then has all sorts of hooks in the code that later get optimised out if not 
used. The problem is that because there is absolutely no optimisation then 
the code looks real bad.

As this discussion shows, they would have got a lot more street cred if they 
had included a basic level of optimisation (after all they already had the 
code from previous versions of the compiler). After all, the free versions 
of Microchips compilers do this (apparently). 

-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist