for(;;) vs. while(1) is a draw
Blair P. Houghton
bph at buengc.BU.EDU
Sat May 26 03:54:29 AEST 1990
In article <12986 at smoke.BRL.MIL> gwyn at smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn) writes:
>In article <5897 at buengc.BU.EDU> bph at buengc.bu.edu (Blair P. Houghton) writes:
>>1 certainly is "logical", as long as it's a nonzero
>>constant expression in C.
>
>"true" is logical. "1" has to be explained as a special quirk of C.
As is done long before you get around to presenting `while'
and `for'.
>>You're implying that X3J11 could well have
>>left that sentence entirely out of the standard.
>
>No, I'm not; it was necessary to give meaning to the empty
>conditional clause in the "for" construct. This says nothing
>about code generation, though.
At least you got that right.
>Note that the standard
>does not address issues of optimization, just requirements for
>conformance.
I never said it did. I was the one who posted the sentence
where it explicitly abrogates that scope.
>I hope nobody has been
>misled by your misreading of the standard.
How altruistic of you. Maybe we can get back to braces.
--Blair
"Any compiler that optimizes
without my permission can
just stay in the box."
More information about the Comp.std.c
mailing list