🚀 go-pugleaf

bph@buengc.bu.edu (Blair P. Houghton) sez in <5915@buengc.BU.EDU>
>>The standard does *NOT* say, in any way, shape, or form, that they are
>>"exactly the same, when translated into object code without thinking
>>about it".
>
>That's it.
>
>If one more person puts words in my mouth without my
>permission, I'm going to fucking ram my fucking terminal
>up their fucking groin.
>
>	I NEVER SAID IT DID, YOU OBSTREPEROUS FUCKING ASSHOLE!!!
>
>Have you and Doug been sucking pills out of the same prescription
>of Stupidity?  Where the hell do you get the idea that I say that
>ANSI X3.159-1989 says how to generate code?

Blair, you're way out of line posting this on comp.std.c.   Take insults
to alt.flame.

In any case, you definitely seemed to imply that you were talking about
code.  Consider:

* You raised the issue because the standard states that for(;;) means
for (;1;) which you said meant that it could be no more efficient than
while(1).  Since everybody already knew they were identical in meaning,
seems to me all you can be talking about is the efficiency of the code
generated.  In other words, the standard specified that the _code_
_generated_ must have an extra comparison.

* If you're not worried about the code generated so long as it does what
the standard says it should, why the hell were you complaining about
"optimization without your permission"?

* I seem to remember your saying that a compiler which didn't produce
the same code for these two cases would be breaking the law, if it
claimed to adhere to the ANSI standard.

Blair, people are wrong all the time.  No doubt Doug and Gwyn often make
mistakes.  Why can't you say "Oh, yes, mea culpa" and keep quiet instead
of denying you ever said that (praying that no-one can be bothered to
dredge up the relevant articles) and flaming the people kind enough to
point it out?
-- 
\/ o\ Paul Crowley aipdc@uk.ac.ed.castle
/\__/ "Trust me, I know what I'm doing" - Sledge Hammer