Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!mailrus!ames!pacbell!att-ih!ttrdc!levy From: levy@ttrdc.UUCP (Daniel R. Levy) Newsgroups: comp.lang.c Subject: Re^3: gotos Message-ID: <2606@ttrdc.UUCP> Date: 25 Apr 88 08:05:08 GMT References: <2586@geac.UUCP>, <3950003@hplvly.HP.COM> <1988Apr24.004842.3251@utzoo.uucp> Organization: AT&T, Skokie, IL Lines: 27 In article <1988Apr24.004842.3251@utzoo.uucp>, henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: # > When faced with multiple occurances of a common section # > of code, one has four choices (any others?): # > 1) some sort of subroutine, # > 2) replicating the code in multiple places, # > 3) some type of big, ugly conditional statement to # > bring unite the occurances, # > 4) goto. # # Remember that there are two separate issues here: what you write, and the # code the compiler generates for it. With modern compilers, the two are # often quite different. This may be highly undesireable in a language used for programming operating systems, where the programmer needs something approaching WYSIWYG capability. C is eminently such a language. I'd rather program a "goto" using an older technology compiler then put in a function call, if your proposed whoop-de-do hyper-global-optimizing compiler is liable to turn my REAL function calls into inline code, unbidden. (OOPS, so THAT'S why I got a 4-megabyte kernel!!!) This isn't just hay. I see on this net reports that PC C-compilers hyper- optimize this way. Their benchmarks beat the band, but the executables they make are elephantine. -- |------------Dan Levy------------| Path: ihnp4,!ttrdc!levy | AT&T | I'm not a real hacker, but I play one on | Data Systems Group | USENET. If you think that AT&T endorses |--------Skokie, Illinois--------| my opinions, I've a nice bridge to sell ya.