Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!rutgers!bellcore!faline!thumper!ulysses!andante!amdcad!crackle!tim
From: tim@crackle.amd.com (Tim Olson)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: "for" loops in C ...
Message-ID: <23299@amdcad.AMD.COM>
Date: 19 Oct 88 01:32:49 GMT
References: <14999@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> <4700019@m.cs.uiuc.edu> <6945@cdis-1.uucp> <73408@sun.uucp>
Sender: news@amdcad.AMD.COM
Reply-To: tim@crackle.amd.com (Tim Olson)
Organization: Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. Sunnyvale CA
Lines: 26
Summary:
Expires:
Sender:
Followup-To:

In article <73408@sun.uucp> limes@ouroborous (Greg Limes) writes:
| In article <6945@cdis-1.uucp>, tanner@cdis-1 (Dr. T. Andrews) writes:
| >It is also possible that compiler writers will get the "for" loop
| >handling wrong.  It is unwise to depend on "for" loops in portable
| >code.  Use a "while" loop instead.
| 
| It is possible for compiler writers to get lots of things wrong; breaking
| something as fundamental as a "for" statment results in an unusable
| compiler. It is, well, kind of basic to the language.
| 
| Dr. Andrews, can you provide an example of a compiler in common use that
| manages to get the for loop wrong? I will gladly make a note of such and stay
| away from them (and any other software produced by their writers).

Didn't anyone else see what Dr. Andrews was pointing out?  Saying that
you should avoid the construct 1["string"] is *like* saying you should
avoid a for loop, because both are fundamental constructs that a broken
C compiler may not implement correctly.  Avoiding something fundamental
just because some compiler somewhere gets it wrong is no excuse -- FIX
THE COMPILER.


	-- Tim Olson
	Advanced Micro Devices
	(tim@crackle.amd.com)