Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!mcsun!ukc!icdoc!inmos!conor@lion.inmos.co.uk
From: conor@lion.inmos.co.uk (Conor O'Neill)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: micro-optimizing loops (was Help with casts)
Keywords: pointless, inane :-)
Message-ID: <14522@ganymede.inmos.co.uk>
Date: 27 Feb 91 15:15:22 GMT
References: <1991Feb21.040145.8678@cec1.wustl.edu> <409@ceco.ceco.com> <339@smds.UUCP> <414@ceco.ceco.com> <10191@dog.ee.lbl.gov>
Sender: news@inmos.co.uk
Reply-To: conor@inmos.co.uk (Conor O'Neill)
Organization: INMOS Limited, Bristol, UK.
Lines: 22

In article <10191@dog.ee.lbl.gov> torek@elf.ee.lbl.gov (Chris Torek) writes:
>Of course, the best optimization for:
>
>	for (i = 1; i < 100; i++)
>		x += i;
>
>is:
>
>	x += 4950;


No.
Try
        { x += 4950; i = 100; }




---
Conor O'Neill, Software Group, INMOS Ltd., UK.
UK: conor@inmos.co.uk		US: conor@inmos.com
"It's state-of-the-art" "But it doesn't work!" "That is the state-of-the-art".