I can't recall which, but I have seen at least one compiler generate code like this (if I had to guess, I'll bet it was either Dynamic C for Rabbit 2000 or an old Bytecraft compiler for an ancient Cypress architecture). Though I've worked with a lot of old, primitive compilers & it's possible it only did this with optimizations off.
At Mindtribe, our coding style suggests "for(;;)" instead of "while(1)". However, the reason isn't performance. Instead, it's that we've seen more than one compiler produce a warning about the testing of a constant in the case of "while(1)". And we have a policy of compiling without warnings.
Comments
I can't recall which, but I have seen at least one compiler generate code like this (if I had to guess, I'll bet it was either Dynamic C for Rabbit 2000 or an old Bytecraft compiler for an ancient Cypress architecture). Though I've worked with a lot of old, primitive compilers & it's possible it only did this with optimizations off.
At Mindtribe, our coding style suggests "for(;;)" instead of "while(1)". However, the reason isn't performance. Instead, it's that we've seen more than one compiler produce a warning about the testing of a constant in the case of "while(1)". And we have a policy of compiling without warnings.