Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!lll-winken!lll-lcc!ames!umd5!brl-adm!brl-smoke!gwyn
From: gwyn@brl-smoke.ARPA (Doug Gwyn )
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: some objections to 'noalias'
Message-ID: <6913@brl-smoke.ARPA>
Date: 5 Jan 88 22:34:44 GMT
References: <485@cresswell.quintus.UUCP> <1453@cuuxb.ATT.COM>
Reply-To: gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB) <gwyn>)
Organization: Ballistic Research Lab (BRL), APG, MD.
Lines: 10

In article <1453@cuuxb.ATT.COM> mmengel@cuuxb.UUCP (Marc W. Mengel) writes:
>Right. It is NOT computable. Therfore you (the compiler) *have* to believe 
>the programmer, since you can't figure it out yourself.

That is the key philosophical point about specifying "noalias".
If it were just like the other type qualifiers, it wouldn't have
been invented.  As a matter of fact, it arose as the resolution
of an attempt to overload the semantics of one of the other type
qualifiers ("const").

P.S.  Good article, Marc!