That eyeball freaks me out. When I see your web page, I immediately think you're saying: "Install my software and I can watch you just like I'm looking through this peephole."

Witch Burning Teslas In the News Ford Recalls Almost 140,000 Escapes

I thought it was called the clitoris mouse. Whose nipples are that small?

No, your years are quite wrong, actually. 640x480 (VGA) was common by 1987-88. In 1985 it was 640x350 (EGA). In 1995 we had already gotten past 800x600 and were on 1024x768.

Agreed. I'm 7.5" and I need it all the time.

Too many shadows, whispering voices
faces on posters, too many choices
If? When? Why? What?
How much have you got?
Have you got it? Do you get it?
If so, how often?
Which do you choose
a hard or soft option?

s/cheeck/cheek/ Too much coffee tonight; forgot how to English properly.

It was meant tongue-in-cheeck.

10 PRINT "HELLO, WORLD!"
20 END
RUN
HELLO, WORLD!

Yup, still works without any tweaking!

You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious.

Better yet, you should always define and set the loop counter when starting a loop, e.g.,

for (int i = 0; i < imax; i++)

so that its type definition is clearly defined and anyone looking at the loop can see it. There is never any good reason for this:

int i;
...
for (i = 0; i < imax; i++)

Or go off and hunt where it was defined.

And this is why we can't have nice things.

I see. OK. I wish Slashdot's comment system was better at showing the order of things in large subthreads.

You said, "If the compiler does anything but check to see if the pointer p is null and execute g() if p is a null pointer then the compiler is broken." I'm saying that's incorrect. Note that the compiler is full well within its right to also try to initialize x by dereferencing p, thereby causing an exception. There is no rule that int x = *p; be optimized out of existence just because it can be.

So if you want your work to be find a prime number larger than 1 trillion, after the number is found; then checking it is fast and easy.

I don't think you quite understand how prime numbers work. If it's easy to check that a number n (known to be larger than some m, for example 1 trillion) is prime, then it's also easy to find the first prime after m, due to the distribution of primes. For example, you only have to expect to test about 14 odd numbers greater than 1 trillion to find one that is prime. So if the test for primeness is "easy," then finding the first prime number larger than 1 trillion is only 14 times as much work — i.e., still "easy."