Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!cmcl2!brl-adm!umd5!mimsy!chris
From: chris@mimsy.UUCP (Chris Torek)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Pragmas
Message-ID: <10242@mimsy.UUCP>
Date: 19 Jan 88 06:29:44 GMT
References: <17196@topaz.rutgers.edu> <6920@brl-smoke.ARPA> <14460@think.UUCP> <1227@nmtsun.nmt.edu>
Organization: U of Maryland, Dept. of Computer Science, Coll. Pk., MD 20742
Lines: 23

In article <1227@nmtsun.nmt.edu> hydrovax@nmtsun.nmt.edu (M. Warner
Losh) writes:
>... many optimization techniques lead to code that in no way resembles
>the original code.

(There is some interesting research on debugging optimised code, by
leaving enough information for the debugger to `undo' optimisations
when showing state.  [Just wanted to mention it.])

>  Noalias, from a compiler writer's point of view, would be a wonderful
>boon. ... The real problem occurs in the maintance cycle of the
>program's life.

This is the most basic reason I oppose `noalias', although I believe
there are any number of other good reasons for it not to be in the
C standard.  (On the other hand, I also believe prototypes should not
be in the standard, so what does that prove...?)  The compiler writer
could receive a yet greater boon by having all those annoying *users*
write assembly code instead.  Where do you draw the line?  I think
it should be with `noalias' outside the standard.
-- 
In-Real-Life: Chris Torek, Univ of MD Comp Sci Dept (+1 301 454 7163)
Domain:	chris@mimsy.umd.edu	Path:	uunet!mimsy!chris