Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!asuvax!mcdphx!riscokid.UUCP!fnf
From: fnf@riscokid.UUCP (Fred Fish)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.tech
Subject: Re: malloc under Lattice C V5.05
Message-ID: <13660@mcdphx.phx.mcd.mot.com>
Date: 24 Sep 90 21:46:04 GMT
References: <3034@orbit.cts.com> <V%$%LR_@rpi.edu> <1990Sep23.061925.6887@jato.jpl.nasa.gov> <6620@sugar.hackercorp.com>
Sender: listen@mcdphx.phx.mcd.mot.com
Reply-To: fnf@riscokid.UUCP (Fred Fish)
Organization: Motorola Microcomputer Division, Tempe, Az.
Lines: 11

In article <6620@sugar.hackercorp.com> peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) writes:
>(As an aside: most 68000 compilers I've used in the past have returned
> pointers in A0 and ints in D0. Seems like an obvious move. I guess Manx
> and Lattice had other priorities.)

It does seem obvious, but most of the compilers I've worked with that
did so ended up being modified to copy the value from A0 to D0 just before
returning, so that buggy programs (such as the one that started this
thread) would continue to run without change.

-Fred