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