Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!ames!amdahl!pyramid!prls!philabs!micomvax!ray
From: ray@micomvax.UUCP (Ray Dunn)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Optimization (was Re: volatile)
Message-ID: <1025@micomvax.UUCP>
Date: 3 May 88 20:24:05 GMT
References: <13074@brl-adm.ARPA> <3938@killer.UUCP> <2758@bsu-cs.UUCP>
Reply-To: ray@micomvax.UUCP (Ray Dunn)
Organization: Philips Electronics Ltd. (TDS - Montreal) St. Laurent QC, Canada
Lines: 29

In article <2758@bsu-cs.UUCP> dhesi@bsu-cs.UUCP (Rahul Dhesi) writes:
>In article <3938@killer.UUCP> chasm@killer.UUCP (Charles Marslett) writes:
>>I may be picky, but if flags to the compiler should not change the semantics
>>of the language (in the broadest sense of the definition of semantics) -- what
>>good are they. 
>
>The sentiment behind this rhetorical question is precisely why it is
>dangerous that ANSI-conformant compilers will silently ignore
>unrecognized #pragmas.

What?  Huh?  I had almost fallen asleep hitting ^N, then this appeared!

Dangerous indeed.  Could this in fact not become the portability nightmare
of the future, and is this perhaps something that we should try to nip in
the bud as quickly as possible?

Forgive me if this has been mentioned previously, it certainly hadn't
(#pragma) registered on me before.

It seems to me that the compilers (not a job for Lint this time I think)
should, by ANSI definition, supply a warning when ignoring a pragma.  That
doesn't necessarily provide much help to the programmer in unravelling the
effects however.

These animals are dangeroos.  Please do not feed.
-- 
Ray Dunn.                      |   UUCP: ..!{philabs, mnetor}!micomvax!ray
Philips Electronics Ltd.       |   TEL : (514) 744-8200   Ext: 2347
600 Dr Frederik Philips Blvd   |   FAX : (514) 744-6455
St Laurent. Quebec.  H4M 2S9   |   TLX : 05-824090