Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!usc!ginosko!uunet!kddlab!ccut!titcca!sragwa!wsgw!socslgw!diamond
From: diamond@csl.sony.co.jp (Norman Diamond)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: effect of free()
Message-ID: <10829@riks.csl.sony.co.jp>
Date: 13 Sep 89 03:59:15 GMT
References: <319@cubmol.BIO.COLUMBIA.EDU> <3756@buengc.BU.EDU> <1989Aug17.005548.745@twwells.com> <16022@vail.ICO.ISC.COM> <248@seti.inria.fr> <10817@riks.csl.sony.co.jp> <254@bbxeng.UUCP>
Reply-To: diamond@ws.sony.junet (Norman Diamond)
Organization: Sony Computer Science Laboratory Inc., Tokyo, Japan
Lines: 23

In article <254@bbxeng.UUCP> scott@bbxeng.UUCP (Scott-Engineering) writes:

>5)  However, a C compiler that attempts to load a segment register (or
>    overly sensitive address register) in order to simply *compare*
>    addresses is brain damaged.

Even if the code subsequently USES the pointer when it's non-null?
Try:  a C compiler that attempts to load a segment register (or
overly sensitive address register) in order to simply *compare*
addresses has taken the first trivial step towards having an optimizer.

>6)  Therefore, we all agree to avoid those compilers thus driving the
>    vendors out of business and we have nothing to worry about.

If you wish to personally boycott all compilers that do optimization,
feel free.

--
-- 
Norman Diamond, Sony Corporation (diamond@ws.sony.junet)
  The above opinions are inherited by your machine's init process (pid 1),
  after being disowned and orphaned.  However, if you see this at Waterloo or
  Anterior, then their administrators must have approved of these opinions.