On Friday 16 September 2005 2:04 pm, Anders Johansson wrote:
On Friday 16 September 2005 13:53, Jerry Feldman wrote:
I fully agree that there are places where fancy code may be necessary, but in many cases, fancy code does inhibit optimization, especially in C.
I think we need some sort of sane definition of the word "fancy" though. The obfuscated C code competition I would definitely agree with, I'm surprised most of that stuff compiles at all :)
But I wouldn't include x++ in that definition In my case, I think that fancy would be any code that is not standard compliant and non-portable.
For instance the following code fragment is standards compliant but non-portable: long n; int i = -2; unsigned k = 1; n = i + k; I'll let you guys ponder this one for a while. -- Jerry Feldman <gaf@blu.org> Boston Linux and Unix user group http://www.blu.org PGP key id:C5061EA9 PGP Key fingerprint:053C 73EC 3AC1 5C44 3E14 9245 FB00 3ED5 C506 1EA9