Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!sharkey!math.lsa.umich.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!samsung!uunet!codonics!bret
From: bret@codonics.COM (Bret Orsburn)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Compilers and programming style (was Re: A question of style)
Message-ID: <649@codonics.COM>
Date: 4 Jan 90 04:11:28 GMT
References: <1989Dec22.100135.2903@gdt.bath.ac.uk> <4367@rtech.rtech.com> <1989Dec31.153241.16479@gdt.bath.ac.uk>
Reply-To: bret@codonics.com (Bret Orsburn)
Organization: Codonics, Inc., Middleburg Heights, OH
Lines: 19

In article <1989Dec31.153241.16479@gdt.bath.ac.uk> exspes@gdr.bath.ac.uk (P E Smee) writes:
>>
>>	*ptr;		/* Should be (*ptr)(), of course */
>
>while valid as written, clearly has no effects and no side effects.

Let me get something clear: are_you/is_anybody claiming that *all* isolated
pointer dereferences are inherently worthless (hence, fair game for whining
compilers), or would you reserve this judgement just for the special case of
an isolated pointer-to-function?

If you are making the former, stronger claim, I could cite a lot of counter-
examples from the realm of Systems Programming (read: Pounding on Hardware).

-- 
-------------------
bret@codonics.com
uunet!codonics!bret                 C Is Not Baroque
Bret Orsburn                          Don't Fix It