Re: noalias in C9X?

Article View: comp.std.c

Article #4555

#4555

From: Michael Quinlan
Date: Thu, 04 Jan 1996 14:46

23 lines
1443 bytes

schlein@umbc.edu (Jonas J. Schlein) wrote:

>Now that the CLC FAQ is in print and I have been able to (finally!) obtain
>a copy, I have been reading it over carefully.
>
>In question 11.28 the 'noalias' qualifier was mentioned as being introduced
>too late to make it into the standard. Also difficulty in giving it well
>defined behavior stood as an obstacle.
>
>My question is whether or not this, or something similar will be in
>a future standard?

http://www.lysator.liu.se/c/ [Programming in C] has pointers to several
C-related items, including Dennis Ritchie's comments on type qualifiers
("Noalias must go. This is nonnegotiable. It must not be reworded,
reformulated or reinvented.")

+--------------------------------------------+
|              Michael Quinlan               |
|             mikeq@primenet.com             |
|       http://www.primenet.com/~mikeq       |
|     If it doesn't fit, you must acquit!    |
+--------------------------------------------+

Technical Details

Message-ID: <4cgp78$rs6@nnrp1.news.primenet.com>

Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!news.primenet.com!not-for-mail

References: <4cfp2k$4gt@umbc9.umbc.edu>

Show Full Headers

Complete Article Headers

Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!news.primenet.com!not-for-mail
From: mikeq@primenet.com (Michael Quinlan)
Newsgroups: comp.std.c
Subject: Re: noalias in C9X?
Date: 4 Jan 1996 07:46:00 -0700
Organization: Primenet Services for the Internet
Sender: root@primenet.com
Message-ID: <4cgp78$rs6@nnrp1.news.primenet.com>
References: <4cfp2k$4gt@umbc9.umbc.edu>
Reply-To: mikeq@primenet.com
X-Posted-By: ip189.boi.primenet.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent .99a.107

Reply to Parent Message