Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: Notesfiles $Revision: 1.7.0.10 $; site ccvaxa
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!ccvaxa!aglew
From: aglew@ccvaxa.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.lang.c
Subject: Re: Infinite loops
Message-ID: <2600047@ccvaxa>
Date: Fri, 18-Apr-86 19:46:00 EST
Article-I.D.: ccvaxa.2600047
Posted: Fri Apr 18 19:46:00 1986
Date-Received: Mon, 21-Apr-86 03:24:05 EST
References: <577@ur-helheim.UUCP>
Lines: 39
Nf-ID: #R:ur-helheim.UUCP:577:ccvaxa:2600047:000:1019
Nf-From: ccvaxa.UUCP!aglew    Apr 18 18:46:00 1986


while(1){} vs. for(;;)

you forgot to mention do{}while(1);

take a look at the code your compiler produces for each one. a good
optimizing compiler should make them all the same, but not all compilers are
good optimizing compilers. i fell into the habit of using while(1) on
68000s; when i started working on 80x86s i found that for(;;) was faster.
i have therefore put

#if defined(MPU68000)
#   define loop while(1)
#elif defined(MPU8086) || defined(MPU80286)
#   define loop for(;;)
#endif

into my personal header. if do{}while(1) proved faster then I suppose I
would have to put an endloop in.

My favorites are

#define the_sky_is_blue 1
while(the_sky_is_blue){}

and

#define ever_and_a_day ;;
for(ever_and_a_day){}

or, in Pascal

CONST Hell_freezes_over = TRUE;
REPEAT ... UNTIL Hell_freezes_over;

But my boss gets angry enough at me as it is! (are you there, Gary?)

Andy "Krazy" Glew. Gould CSD-Urbana.    USEnet:  ihnp4!uiucdcs!ccvaxa!aglew
1101 E. University, Urbana, IL 61801    ARPAnet: aglew@gswd-vms