gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn ) (12/02/88)
In article <14797@mimsy.UUCP> chris@mimsy.UUCP (Chris Torek) writes: >... it is not true of `noalias', at least as it was conceived and proposed. >It could only be ignored when not used, not even by library routines called >by routines called by you. Yes, we didn't get it specified right. But even some of the most ardent opponents of "noalias" privately admitted that the specification could probably have been fixed. It just wasn't feasible to do that at that stage of the standardization effort. It's something the next C standards committee should keep in mind (although perhaps global intramodular optimization will be common by then, obviating the need for it).