Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!genrad!panda!husc6!harvard!seismo!rlgvax!hadron!jsdy
From: jsdy@hadron.UUCP (Joseph S. D. Yao)
Newsgroups: net.lang.c
Subject: Re:  Infinite loops
Message-ID: <390@hadron.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 3-May-86 10:54:10 EDT
Article-I.D.: hadron.390
Posted: Sat May  3 10:54:10 1986
Date-Received: Tue, 6-May-86 06:06:11 EDT
References: <117@brl-smoke.ARPA>
Reply-To: jsdy@hadron.UUCP (Joseph S. D. Yao)
Organization: Hadron, Inc., Fairfax, VA
Lines: 27
Summary: Use for (;;) ...

In article <117@brl-smoke.ARPA> gwyn@BRL.ARPA (VLD/VMB) writes:
>do ... while(1);
>while(1) ...
>for(;;) ...
>are all widely-used idioms for unconditional looping in C.
>I personally prefer the latter, but the choice is just a
>matter of taste.  Any reasonable compiler will generate
>efficient code for all three constructs.

Unfortunately, as I'm sure many readers of this group will agree,
not all compilers are reasonable.  The only one that consistently
doesn't generate useless code is for (;;) {...}.

BTW, given all these defines:  here are some "cute" ones of mine:

#define ever	(;;)	/* for ever ...; */
#define unless(x)	if (!(x))	/* unless (x) ...; */
#define until(x)	while (!(x))	/* until (x) ...;
					   do ... until (x); */

and of course	[ given #define OK 0 ]

#define streq(a,b)	(strcmp(a, b) == OK)
#define strneq(a,b,n)	(strncmp(a, b, n) == OK)
-- 

	Joe Yao		hadron!jsdy@seismo.{CSS.GOV,ARPA,UUCP}