C7: Fill & Download for Free

Sorta, kinda, not exactly.In 1959 Eugene Stoner designed the ArmaLite Rifle 15 (AR-15).In 1961, after some changes, the rights were sold to Colt and it was adopted into US Military service as the M16 Rifle.Note that, internally, Colt continued to call the M16 the Colt AR-15, as shown by old receivers.By 1964 Colt was selling the Colt AR-15 Sporter, a semi-automatic variant of the M16.This is why the AR-15 today, unless otherwise specified, refers to the semi-auto civilian marketed variant. The terminology goes back to the Colt AR-15 Sporter rather than the original ArmaLite AR-15. All of the semi-auto clones are likewise called “AR-15”, much like how “Kleenex” is how many people call facial tissue.In 1984 the Canadian military adopted the C7 manufactured by Colt Canada (formerly Diemaco). The C7 is a variant of the Colt M16A3.So the AR-15 is not a derivative of the C7, nor is the C7 a derivative of the AR-15 (that is, Colt AR-15 Sporter), but rather they are both descendants of the M16 which is the evolved form of the original ArmaLite AR-15.Original question-Is the AR-15 a civilian version of the C7 gun that's a standard infantry weapon in the Canadian military?

Exactly as Scott Dewson wrote, the C7A2 is our current rifle, which was a direct replacement for the FN FAL. One thing that makes the C7 unique to the US’s M4 is that our C7s are almost always equipped with the C79 Optical Sight as shown below. This is a fantastic sight that is very rugged and durable. For your interest, in the photo the bottom rifle variant was the originally issued C7 (the C7A1) which featured a fixed buttstock and typically a carrying handle affixed with iron sights (among other semi-confidential changes).Cheers

I made a test program in Linux to find out.I first created speed.c:#include <stdio.h>  int main() {  int i;  int j;  int sum = 0;   for (i = 0; i < 10; ++i) {  sum += i;  }   j = 0;  while (j < 10) {  sum += j;  ++j;  }   return 0; } I compiled it with:gcc -o speed speed.cThen I ran:objdump -d speed > speed.txtNext, I opened up speed.txt and found the code for main():0000000000400474 <main>:  400474: 55 push %rbp  400475: 48 89 e5 mov %rsp,%rbp  400478: c7 45 fc 00 00 00 00 movl $0x0,-0x4(%rbp)  40047f: c7 45 f4 00 00 00 00 movl $0x0,-0xc(%rbp)  400486: eb 0a jmp 400492 <main+0x1e>  400488: 8b 45 f4 mov -0xc(%rbp),%eax  40048b: 01 45 fc add %eax,-0x4(%rbp)  40048e: 83 45 f4 01 addl $0x1,-0xc(%rbp)  400492: 83 7d f4 09 cmpl $0x9,-0xc(%rbp)  400496: 7e f0 jle 400488 <main+0x14>  400498: c7 45 f8 00 00 00 00 movl $0x0,-0x8(%rbp)  40049f: eb 0a jmp 4004ab <main+0x37>  4004a1: 8b 45 f8 mov -0x8(%rbp),%eax  4004a4: 01 45 fc add %eax,-0x4(%rbp)  4004a7: 83 45 f8 01 addl $0x1,-0x8(%rbp)  4004ab: 83 7d f8 09 cmpl $0x9,-0x8(%rbp)  4004af: 7e f0 jle 4004a1 <main+0x2d>  4004b1: b8 00 00 00 00 mov $0x0,%eax  4004b6: c9 leaveq   4004b7: c3 retq   4004b8: 90 nop  4004b9: 90 nop  4004ba: 90 nop  4004bb: 90 nop  4004bc: 90 nop  4004bd: 90 nop  4004be: 90 nop  4004bf: 90 nop The first loop (the for loop) uses the following code:...  40047f: c7 45 f4 00 00 00 00 movl $0x0,-0xc(%rbp)  400486: eb 0a jmp 400492 <main+0x1e>  400488: 8b 45 f4 mov -0xc(%rbp),%eax  40048b: 01 45 fc add %eax,-0x4(%rbp)  40048e: 83 45 f4 01 addl $0x1,-0xc(%rbp)  400492: 83 7d f4 09 cmpl $0x9,-0xc(%rbp)  400496: 7e f0 jle 400488 <main+0x14> ... The second loop (the while loop) uses the following code:...  400498: c7 45 f8 00 00 00 00 movl $0x0,-0x8(%rbp)  40049f: eb 0a jmp 4004ab <main+0x37>  4004a1: 8b 45 f8 mov -0x8(%rbp),%eax  4004a4: 01 45 fc add %eax,-0x4(%rbp)  4004a7: 83 45 f8 01 addl $0x1,-0x8(%rbp)  4004ab: 83 7d f8 09 cmpl $0x9,-0x8(%rbp)  4004af: 7e f0 jle 4004a1 <main+0x2d> ... As you can see, both loops follow the same structure in the assembly code, and both loops require the same number of operations.Thus, for a basic counting loop in C compiled with GCC on Linux with default optimization, while loops and for loops have the same performance.There may be, however, special cases (like dynamic conditions and whatnot) that change which looping structure's performance is better. You really can't say that one looping structure is better than the other without checking to see what code is generated by the compiler. So, if you're really concerned, do what I did above with your own code and find out for yourself!