Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!rutgers!mit-eddie!uw-beaver!cornell!rochester!ur-tut!sunybcs!boulder!hao!oddjob!mimsy!chris
From: chris@mimsy.UUCP (Chris Torek)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Pragmas
Message-ID: <10110@mimsy.UUCP>
Date: 9 Jan 88 07:25:07 GMT
References: <17196@topaz.rutgers.edu> <6920@brl-smoke.ARPA> <14460@think.UUCP> <3313@ihlpf.ATT.COM>
Organization: U of Maryland, Dept. of Computer Science, Coll. Pk., MD 20742
Lines: 19

[Now this is odd.  I, who am quite opposed to noalias, find myself
shooting at an argument against it:]

In article <3313@ihlpf.ATT.COM> nevin1@ihlpf.ATT.COM (00704A-Liber) writes:
>... suppose I compile a program that uses 'noalias' with a compiler that
>ignores 'noalias'.  I test it and find no problems.  I now have a program
>which I believe works but if ported to a compiler which uses 'noalias'
>it might develop a bug.

Unfortunately, this argument (which I myself used, after a fashion)
fails in general, for there are any number of things you can do to
produce code that, while incorrect, still works on some particular
architecture.

I think the two best arguments against noalias are 0) it is late
to be adding keywords and 1) it does little for a good compiler.
-- 
In-Real-Life: Chris Torek, Univ of MD Comp Sci Dept (+1 301 454 ????)
Domain:	chris@mimsy.umd.edu	Path:	uunet!mimsy!chris