Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!bu.edu!buengc!bph
From: bph@buengc.BU.EDU (Blair P. Houghton)
Newsgroups: comp.std.c
Subject: Re: for(;;) vs. while(1) is a draw
Message-ID: <5904@buengc.BU.EDU>
Date: 25 May 90 17:15:43 GMT
References: <5876@buengc.BU.EDU> <12955@smoke.BRL.MIL> <5879@buengc.BU.EDU> <Z4O3P:2@xds13.ferranti.com>
Reply-To: bph@buengc.bu.edu (Blair P. Houghton)
Followup-To: comp.std.c
Organization: Boston Univ. Col. of Eng.
Lines: 17

In article <Z4O3P:2@xds13.ferranti.com> peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) writes:
>In article <5879@buengc.BU.EDU> bph@buengc.bu.edu (Blair P. Houghton) writes:
>> "The semantic descriptions in this standard describe the behavior
>> of an abstract machine in which issues of optimization are irrelevant."
>> (ANSI X3.159-1989, Sec. 2.1.2.3, pp. 8, ll. 29-30)
>
>I don't believe that is an operative statement. The quote you gave means
>the compiler can legally generate any code it likes for anything, so long
>as the semantics match the abstract machine. The compiler is permitted
>to generate any code it likes, including code that calls "sendmail" to
>mail a message to Dennis Ritchie asking him which way he thinks the test
>should go today.

When did I say otherwise?

				--Blair
				  "Are you paying attention?"