Path: utzoo!attcan!sobmips!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!rutgers!cmcl2!lanl!opus!pfeiffer From: pfeiffer@nmsu.edu (Joe Pfeiffer) Newsgroups: comp.sys.m88k Subject: Re: Info about the 88open Consortium and standards Message-ID: Date: 16 Nov 89 04:31:36 GMT References: <1948@psueea.UUCP> <1989Nov14.175806.23483@paris.ics.uci.edu> <5063@tekcrl.LABS.TEK.COM> Sender: news@nmsu.edu Organization: NMSU Computer Science Lines: 14 In-reply-to: terryl@tekcrl.LABS.TEK.COM's message of 15 Nov 89 19:12:16 GMT terryl@tekcrl.LABS.TEK.COM writes in <5063@tekcrl.LABS.TEK.COM>: | But the opposite (where NO registers are saved across procedure calls; it |is the responsibility of the calling procedure to save whichever registers it |will need later) is probably too restrictive; it puts too much burden on the |compiler writer (not to mention all the assembler writers, but it's not a This is probably getting a bit far afield, but I'm very puzzled by this statement. It has always been my impression that it doesn't much matter whether the registers are preserved by the caller or the callee, just so somebody does it. Why is there a greater burden on the compiler writer if it's the callee? -Joe Pfeiffer.