Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!lll-winken!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!samsung!think!ames!amdahl!rtech!mikes@rtech.UUCP
From: mikes@rtech.UUCP (Mike Schilling)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Compilers and programming style (was Re: A question of style)
Message-ID: <4406@rtech.rtech.com>
Date: 5 Jan 90 17:37:25 GMT
References: <649@codonics.COM>
Sender: news@rtech.rtech.com
Lines: 24

From article <649@codonics.COM>, by bret@codonics.COM (Bret Orsburn):
> 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 ...

I'm claiming exactly that.  To claim the contary, one has to assert the 
following:

1. Dereferencing a pointer is an absolute command to read the location pointed
   to, unless *optimization* is allowed.
2. A high-level language is a tool for generating a precise sequence of
   machine instructions.

I don't believe either of those.  I've done my share of hardware hacking, but
in assembly language, as God intended.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Any resemblance between the opinions expressed above and those of any living
person is a coincidence.
mikes@rtech.com = Mike Schilling, Ingres Corporation, Alameda, CA