httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dean Gaudet <dgau...@arctic.org>
Subject Re: [Fwd: Problem 2534]
Date Mon, 03 Aug 1998 23:44:13 GMT
Uh, no there's nothing to make more clear to the compiler.  The code is
correct, the compiler cannot combine those symbols.

Dean

On Mon, 3 Aug 1998, Alexei Kosut wrote:

> On Mon, 3 Aug 1998, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> 
> > Alexei Kosut wrote:
> > > 
> > > (Recall that arrays and pointers are not the same thing in C, no matter
> > > how alike they may act)
> > > 
> > 
> > Yep... that's why I suggested changing the decalrations from [] to *
> > for the "end_" variables in question... Mostly likely, this would make
> > is clearer to the compiler what we mean.
> 
> Yes, this sounds like a good idea to me. While the array-to-pointer
> conversions are well-defined (pointer = &array[0]), this just strikes me
> as something that a compiler, especially a well-meaning optimizing
> compiler, could screw up. While theoretically, a pointer to an array
> should always give the same result, using a pointer directly ensures it,
> hmm? (since there is actually a word in memory somewhere that actually
> contains the pointer address, instead of it being calculated each time
> it's needed)
> 
> +1, regardless of whether or not it solves the problem :)
> 
> I mean, heck, it would save a whole 77 bytes of memory per process!
> 
> -- Alexei Kosut <akosut@stanford.edu> <http://www.stanford.edu/~akosut/>
>    Stanford University, Class of 2001 * Apache <http://www.apache.org> *
> 
> 
> 


Mime
View raw message