Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!sundc!pitstop!sun!decwrl!cookie.dec.com!devine From: devine@cookie.dec.com (Bob Devine) Newsgroups: comp.lang.c Subject: Re: `noalias' vs `register' Message-ID: <8712170057.AA17035@decwrl.dec.com> Date: 17 Dec 87 00:57:04 GMT Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation Lines: 21 In article <6833@brl-smoke.ARPA> gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB)) writes: > >The "noalias" type qualifier promises that the object can only be >modified by a single handle (as I said), thereby permitting the >optimizer to do things that are not safe otherwise [...] I dislike this creation. I can see that some time/space savings is possible *if it is used correctly* but I doubt it. I simply don't see it as worth the bother. Most folks would drop into assembly or otherwise recode if they are that concerned with optimization. I see problems with someone later recoding parts of a program and gets bitten by 'noalias' -- there are too many programmer (bad) habits. A better way, in hindsight, would have been to have a 'alias' keyword that designates those cases where multiple handles are used; all other cases could then be assumed to be optimizable. Too late. Finally, if the committee wants to provide the negative-name for attributes perhaps they should use 'noregister' instead of 'volatile'. Bob Devine ...!decwrl!cookie.dec.com!devine