Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!rutgers!cmcl2!adm!smoke!gwyn
From: gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn )
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Definition of boolean type
Message-ID: <9768@smoke.BRL.MIL>
Date: 2 Mar 89 14:58:29 GMT
References: <10@dbase.UUCP> <1989Feb10.092449.20875@sq.uucp> <6849@pogo.GPID.TEK.COM> <9753@smoke.BRL.MIL> <2892@nunki.usc.edu>
Reply-To: gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB) <gwyn>)
Organization: Ballistic Research Lab (BRL), APG, MD.
Lines: 12

In article <2892@nunki.usc.edu> jeenglis@nunki.usc.edu (Joe English) writes:
-gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB) <gwyn>) writes:
->That's pretty strange -- "if(x)" means no more and no less than
->"if x is nonzero", which nearly all instruction sets support directly.
->It's easy to imagine a dumb compiler that produces MORE code for
->"if(x!=0)" but not one that produces LESS code.
-If I recall correctly, it generated the same amount of code
-for "if(x)" and "if(x!=0)," but it went something like:

I can also believe that a compiler would produce exactly same code
for "if(x)" and "if(x!=0)", even if it's horrible code in both cases.
I still wonder how one could get WORSE code for "if(x)", though.