Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!genrad!decvax!ittatc!dcdwest!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!hplabs!hpda!hpisoa2!hpitg!brl-sem!ron@brl-sem
From: ron@brl-sem
Newsgroups: net.lang.c
Subject: Re: Infinite Loops
Message-ID: <185@brl-sem>
Date: Wed, 30-Apr-86 01:10:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: brl-sem.185
Posted: Wed Apr 30 01:10:00 1986
Date-Received: Tue, 13-May-86 01:21:02 EDT
References: <8200004@ztivax>
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