Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!world!decwrl!mcnc!uvaarpa!murdoch!astsun8.astro.Virginia.EDU!gl8f
From: gl8f@astsun8.astro.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc
Subject: Re: Answers, Chapter 1: TeX
Message-ID: <1990Nov1.213740.14936@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
Date: 1 Nov 90 21:37:40 GMT
References: <27028@megaron.cs.arizona.edu>
Sender: news@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU
Organization: Department of Astronomy, University of Virginia
Lines: 19

In article <27028@megaron.cs.arizona.edu> gudeman@cs.arizona.edu (David Gudeman) writes:
>In article  <4464@lanl.gov> jlg@lanl.gov (Jim Giles) writes:
>]
>]Ok.  First _without_ the 'aliased' attribute:
>]   ... arrays are a direct win over pointers (which is why
>]   Fortran is usually faster than C on array intensive code).  Of
>]   course, optimizing the arrays this way is unsafe unless the
>]   loader checks all passed arguments to enforce the constraint that
>]   distinct arrays are NOT aliased.
>
>You are still comparing apples and oranges.  You are comparing
>"arrays, assumed not to be aliased" with "pointers, assumed to be
>aliased".

Looks to me that he's trying to figure out the fastest way to do
array-intensive calculations in C and Fortran. In that case, the
problems with C pointers cause C compilers to miss optimizations. If
you aren't concerned about such a situation, it's not surprising that
you two are talking past each other.