Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!lavaca.uh.edu!menudo.uh.edu!sugar!ficc!peter From: peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) Newsgroups: comp.lang.c Subject: Re: Func Protos with K&R Func Defs Message-ID: Date: 7 Mar 91 23:54:16 GMT References: <1991Feb28.021715.18153@athena.mit.edu> <15354@smoke.brl.mil> <1991Mar2.181953.15401@athena.mit.edu> <10714@dog.ee.lbl.gov> Reply-To: peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) Organization: Xenix Support, FICC Lines: 17 In article <10714@dog.ee.lbl.gov> torek@elf.ee.lbl.gov (Chris Torek) writes: > This statement is correct (in a strict logical sense), but all the > implications it makes are wrong. That is, the statement > [compiler treats prototyped functions specially] implies > [compiler may not take advantage of...] > is true but only because the clause [compiler treats prototyped > functions specially] is false. This means, then, that an ANSI compiler is allowed to make the sorts of optimisations that prototypes allow it to safely make, without the prototypes being in scope? This seems to rather the optimisations that an ANSI compiler can make... -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' peter@ferranti.com +1 713 274 5180. 'U` "Have you hugged your wolf today?"