|[13 earlier articles]|
|Re: programmer optimizations? email@example.com (1995-01-27)|
|Re: programmer optimizations? firstname.lastname@example.org (1995-01-31)|
|Re: programmer optimizations? c1veeru@WATSON.IBM.COM (Virendra K. Mehta) (1995-02-02)|
|Re: programmer optimizations? email@example.com (1995-02-01)|
|Re: programmer optimizations? firstname.lastname@example.org (1995-02-01)|
|Re: programmer optimizations? email@example.com (1995-02-02)|
|Re: programmer optimizations? firstname.lastname@example.org (Ronald F. Guilmette) (1995-02-04)|
|From:||"Ronald F. Guilmette" <email@example.com>|
|Date:||Sat, 4 Feb 1995 10:57:47 GMT|
Virendra K. Mehta <c1veeru@WATSON.IBM.COM> wrote:
>I remember reading somewhere that C had a stillborn reserved word 'noalias'.
>Was it supposed to convey the same meaning ? Why was it discontinued and how
>good an idea would it be to revive it ?
I personally wasn't there at the time, but from what I've heard, ``noalias''
had two strikes against it in the ANSI C committee. First, the proposal
arrived only very very late in the game. Second, it has some definite
(although arguably minor and/or fixable) flaws. (Dennis Richey was among
the folks who pointed out the flaws.)
Our moderator writes:
>[There have been a variety of C extensions proposed for "noalias" or
>"restricted" pointers. Noalias failed to make it into the standard because
>they couldn't get a clean enough definition of it in the time frame they had.
>Restricted pointers may show up in C9X. -John]
I, for one, certainly hope so. As a member of X3J11, I've had an opportunity
to take a look at the ``restrict'' proposal developed by Tom MacDonald @
Cray Research and I've been very favorably impressed. I think Tom's done
a fine job on it, and I also believe that it avoids and/or eliminates the
flaws which were associated with the earlier ``noalias'' proposal.
-- Ron Guilmette, Sunnyvale, CA
---- E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.