NetNews Offline 2/NetNews Offline Volume 2.iso/news/comp/lang/c-part2/13992

Internet Message Format | 1996-08-05 | 1.7 KB

Path: news.connectnet.com!usenet
From: [e-mail]
Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc,comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: GOTO controversy
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 22:42:42 PDT
Organization: CONNECTnet Internet Network Services (service provider)
Message-ID: <4ki66c$[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: max-nc-203.connectnet.com
X-Newsreader: skim 0.8.4

Lawrence Kirby <[e-mail]> wrote:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] "Kelly Hall" writes:
>
>>>>>>> "Lawrence" == Lawrence Kirby <[e-mail]> writes:
>>    Lawrence> An O(log N) stack depth is generally not a problem. I
>>    Lawrence> guess you could say that is finite because there are
>>    Lawrence> typically practical upper bounds to N.
>>
>>Tail recursion is implemented by all non-stupid compilers the same way
>>as the imperative (goto) version.  Gcc will do this, whether or not
>>your favorite compiler will is a different matter.
>>
>>No stack problems at all.
>
>Code that relies on compiler optimisations (which C doesn't guarantee) to
>even work at all is at best highly suspect and at worst plain broken. In
>some cases it is company policy to compile with optimisations turned off,
>this should not cause code to blow up.
>
>--
>-----------------------------------------
>Lawrence Kirby | [e-mail]
>Wilts, England | [e-mail]
>-----------------------------------------

--

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
VISION AUTOMATION
Taufiq Habib
[e-mail]
Office [phone]
Beeper [phone]  x103-6118