Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!yale!cmcl2!lanl!jlg
From: jlg@lanl.gov (Jim Giles)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc
Subject: Re: Whether cc after f2c can optimize arrays as well as f77 can
Message-ID: <5496@lanl.gov>
Date: 9 Nov 90 21:53:19 GMT
References: <24389:Nov906:00:4690@kramden.acf.nyu.edu>
Organization: Los Alamos Natl Lab, Los Alamos, N.M.
Lines: 29

From article <24389:Nov906:00:4690@kramden.acf.nyu.edu>, by brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein):
> [...]
> I have always held the same position. You can see exactly the same
> position in many of my articles, and in my complaint that the Convex
> anti-aliasing mechanism makes the opposite assumption.
> 
> You claim that I have suggested otherwise. I challenge you to prove your
> claim. You will fail, because you are lying.

From article <2779:Nov608:20:1990@kramden.acf.nyu.edu>, by brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein):
> [...]
> : The most flexible (and arguably the best) solution is to let the
> : programmer assert the lack of aliasing between any variables at any
> : time. Q provides sufficiently general mechanisms for this.

Note: you state here that you assert the _lack_ of aliasing - which
means that you must be assuming that things are aliased by default.
This is the opposite direction to the order I would choose.  This
is a consistent position of yours.  If you really _mean_ that
the default is no-alias then your above solution should read:

   The most flexible (and arguably the best) solution is to let the
   programmer assert the _presence_ of aliasing between any
   variables at any time.

You should either say what you mean or you should stop accusing people
of lying when they take you at your word.

J. Giles