Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!att!att!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!think.com!barmar
From: barmar@think.com (Barry Margolin)
Newsgroups: comp.std.c
Subject: Re: MIPS varargs (Was Re: Reality check)
Message-ID: <1990Nov3.235539.24204@Think.COM>
Date: 3 Nov 90 23:55:39 GMT
References: <14199@smoke.BRL.MIL> <108077@convex.convex.com> <14322@smoke.brl.mil>
Sender: news@Think.COM
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge MA, USA
Lines: 21

In article <14322@smoke.brl.mil> gwyn@smoke.brl.mil (Doug Gwyn) writes:
>In article <108077@convex.convex.com> gargulak@mozart.convex.com (Tom Gargulak) writes:
>>For example, the following two functions will have different codegen.
>>	test(Xa_alist) {}
>>	test(va_alist) {}
>>No include files required.
>Well, that's clearly wrong behavior, since both these are merely functions
>having a single int-valued parameter.

If the code generated by each version has the same high level results, why
is it wrong?  Perhaps there might be miniscule performance differences, but
does the any C specification say anything about relative performance of
code generated from different pieces of source?

I'd say that the behavior of this compiler is surprising, perhaps even
undesirable, but I think it would be allowed by most language specs.
--
Barry Margolin, Thinking Machines Corp.

barmar@think.com
{uunet,harvard}!think!barmar