Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!rutgers!mit-eddie!cybvax0!frog!john
From: john@frog.UUCP (John Woods, Software)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: C test
Message-ID: <1545@frog.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 7-Aug-87 21:09:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: frog.1545
Posted: Fri Aug  7 21:09:00 1987
Date-Received: Sun, 9-Aug-87 11:07:27 EDT
References: <1090@gilsys.UUCP> <2550025@hpisod2.HP.COM>
Organization: Superfrog Heaven [ CRDS, Framingham MA ]
Lines: 37
Summary: pessimization

In article <2550025@hpisod2.HP.COM>, decot@hpisod2.HP.COM (Dave Decot) writes:
> > Improve the following code fragment through reorganization:
> > {
> >     if (A) { B; return; }
> >     if (C) { D; return; }
> >     if (E) { F; return; }
> >     G; return;
> > }
> I have several answers to this; each would be the "right" answer depending
> on who is asking the question and what hidden agenda they have.
> 1) Since we do not know whether the definitions, if any, of A, B, C, etc.,
>    contain imbalanced syntactic tokens, there is no way to change this
>    fragment without possibly breaking the code.
> 2) {	if (A)	    B;
> 	else if (C) D;
> 	else if (E) F;
> 	else 	    G;
> 	return;
>    }
> 3) <for the APL freak in all of us...>

To me, the correct answer is:
4) "That's not my job.  That's the job of the compiler writer."

Although the lettered code blocks aren't given, when I assume them to be
function calls, the Greenhills C compiler generates identical code for the
original and for the classical reorganization given.

Think of this test not so much as a test of your abilities, as a test of
whether or not you want to work for the clown that asked it...

--
John Woods, Charles River Data Systems, Framingham MA, (617) 626-1101
...!decvax!frog!john, ...!mit-eddie!jfw, jfw%mit-ccc@MIT-XX.ARPA

"The Unicorn is a pony that has been tragically
disfigured by radiation burns." -- Dr. Science