Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uwm.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!ginosko!uunet!bfmny0!tneff
From: tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET (Tom Neff)
Newsgroups: comp.std.c
Subject: Re: noalias (was: Re: the "const" qualifier)
Message-ID: <14774@bfmny0.UU.NET>
Date: 20 Oct 89 16:39:29 GMT
References: <12239@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu> <11301@smoke.BRL.MIL> <3728@solo10.cs.vu.nl> <11320@smoke.BRL.MIL> <742@ccssrv.UUCP> <1989Oct19.162849.20265@utzoo.uucp> <11351@smoke.BRL.MIL>
Reply-To: tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET (Tom Neff)
Organization: ^
Lines: 22
Summary:
Expires:
Sender:
Followup-To:

In article <11351@smoke.BRL.MIL> gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn) writes:
>                                                         ...  There still
>is no official support for the kind of improved optimization that "noalias"
>would have supported. ...

>It was certainly within X3J11's mandate to invent solutions -- when
>necessary to remedy clearly perceived deficiencies.  ...

I guess the question is whether lack of "official support" for the
latest "improved optimization" is really a "clearly perceived
deficiency."  The whole noalias issue seemed intricately entangled with
late 80's notions of addressing and optimization.  In five years it will
probably look quite silly.  At worst, if the concept is that vital it
will be introduced in some form as an extension by individual vendors,
and if it proves popular and enduring the next committee can add it from
"prior art."  

It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a
standards committee to make up a useful language extension.
-- 
The real problem with SDI is     %/    Tom Neff
that it doesn't kill anybody.    /%    tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET