Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!bellcore!decvax!decwrl!pyramid!pesnta!amd!amdcad!lll-crg!seismo!brl-sem!ron
From: ron@brl-sem.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.lang.c
Subject: Re: Infinite loops
Message-ID: <185@brl-sem.ARPA>
Date: Tue, 29-Apr-86 16:10:21 EDT
Article-I.D.: brl-sem.185
Posted: Tue Apr 29 16:10:21 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 3-May-86 18:07:49 EDT
References: <577@ur-helheim.UUCP> <140@toram.UUCP>
Organization: Ballistic Research Lab (BRL), APG, MD.
Lines: 12

> Unless you have a very unique optimizer, it is usually better to use the
> for(;;) form rather than the while(1) form.  Reason is:  while(1) is
> ALWAYS evaluated (ie. : is 1 TRUE? if so, continue) before each iteration,
> whereas for(;;) compiles as a simple branch or jump instruction with no
> test and no conditional branch.
> 
Crapola.  All the PCC impementations I've checked don't test the constant
even when you don't turn the optimizer on.  Our old PDP-11 Ritchie compiler
does generate the test, but the standard -O optimizer removes it.  Nothing
unique here.

-Ron