Re: Performance, for(int i...) vs for(i...)

[David Brown <david dot brown at hesbynett dot no>]

On 26/08/12 20:41, Tim Prince wrote:
> On 8/26/2012 1:56 PM, Georg-Johann Lay wrote:
> > Tim Prince schrieb:
> > > On 08/26/2012 11:30 AM, lab@kayohamid.net wrote:
> > > > Hello, I like performance, and until last month i follow what I see
> > > > on the web to do better coding for performance, like:
> > > >
> > > > - Avoid i++, use ++i and so on.
> > > >
> > > > But now i'm using the assembly (-S) code generated to see if
> > > > somethings is correct, and today i'm investigating this:
> > > >
> > > > int i;
> > > > for(i = 0;....);
> > > >
> > > > vs
> > > >
> > > > for(int i = 0;...);
> > >
> > > [...] It's probably important to continue to handle the declaration
> > > outside the scope well, as that version is required for C source code
> > > by Microsoft compilers, even VS2012.
> > > I have had occasion to wish that people didn't rely on non-standard
> > > maybe Microsoft is right in forbidding both incorrect and correct C++
> > > usage in C code.
> >
> > It's all vanilla C99, no C++ is needed for that.
> >
> > Just activate that language standard in your C compiler ;-)
> >
> > Johann
> Nothing wrong with maintaining compatibility with a widely marketed
> compiler, even if gcc does the job better.

Are you suggesting that people who use gcc should limit themselves and 
the quality of the code they write because some other manufacturer makes 
a half-hearted C compiler that they hope no one will ever use?  MS 
supports C++ (with their own additions), C# and VB (their own 
proprietary languages) - they haven't supported C properly for something 
like a decade.

If you want to use MS tools, that's fine - but use the tools they 
actually recommend you use.  And if you want to write C, use a real C 
compiler.

There are many features of C99 that are good additions to making C a 
better language, and you should use them when writing C code.