Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!nrl-cmf!ames!pasteur!ucbvax!decwrl!labrea!rutgers!bellcore!faline!thumper!ulysses!mhuxo!mhuxu!att!cbnews!lvc
From: lvc@cbnews.ATT.COM (Lawrence V. Cipriani)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: C optimizer
Keywords: C pure function optimization
Message-ID: <4276@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Date: 23 Feb 89 16:09:38 GMT
References: <515@larry.UUCP> <9648@smoke.BRL.MIL> <36034@bbn.COM> <3121@ficc.uu.net> <1028@frog.UUCP>
Reply-To: lvc@cbnews.ATT.COM (Lawrence V. Cipriani)
Organization: AT&T Network Systems
Lines: 13

In article <1028@frog.UUCP> john@frog.UUCP (John Woods) writes:
>I think that if
>
>	(getpid() != getpid())
>
>ever evaluated to 1, I would be severely astonished.

How about if the left hand getpid() is called, and before the right hand
getpid() is called a signal comes in, causing a signal handler to be called,
then the signal handler does a fork.  Then, the interrupt handler returns
and the right hand getpid() is called.  Voila!
-- 
Larry Cipriani, att!cbnews!lvc or lvc@cbnews.att.com