Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!batcomputer!cornell!uw-beaver!milton!ogicse!intelhf!ichips!iwarp.intel.com!inews!hopi!bhoughto
From: bhoughto@hopi.intel.com (Blair P. Houghton)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: low level optimization
Message-ID: <3950@inews.intel.com>
Date: 22 Apr 91 08:18:53 GMT
Article-I.D.: inews.3950
References: <21868@lanl.gov> <3906@inews.intel.com> <22021@lanl.gov>
Sender: news@inews.intel.com
Organization: Intel Corp, Chandler, AZ
Lines: 24

In article <22021@lanl.gov> jlg@cochiti.lanl.gov (Jim Giles) writes:
[...and forgets to attribute me...]
>> prevents use of this optimization, but you haven't been
>> so vocal about the case where you deliberately alias one
>> of your arrays, which also blows your optimization.
>
>Since I _never_ deliberately alias array arguments either to each
>other or to globals to which the procedure I'm calling has access,
>this is not an issue to me.

And I don't depend on Fortrannical optimizations that can break
whenever the vendor feels like it.  If I want things linked
that closely, I'll keep them close.

[...lots of "it would be nice if C were Fortran" deleted...]

Some of us like the fact that arrays are passed as
pointers, and can be aliased rampantly.  It's a matter of
looking _both_ ways before stepping into the street, though
the traffic is _supposed_ to be traveling in only one
direction per lane...

				--Blair
				  "Go figure."