s the upper limit of the loop upfront.
Anyway, the main point of the complete mail was to propose semantics
that is
strong enough for the "speed is all" camp, and predictable enough for the
"real world code assumes wrapping" camp.
--
Michael Veksler
http:///tx.technion.ac.il/~mveksler
; i>= 0 ; ++i) {.}
The compiler will not be allowed to eliminate the "i>=0" check since
i<=x might return true when "i<=x && i>=0" would return false.
This wording also allows
for (i=0 ; i<=x ; ++i) {}
to be optimized to
i=x+1
since is ok to assume that i<=x returns *false* for i=MAX_INT+1.
--
Michael Veksler
http:///tx.technion.ac.il/~mveksler
