Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!apple!uokmax!munnari.oz.au!goanna!ok
From: ok@goanna.cs.rmit.oz.au (Richard A. O'Keefe)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Novice question.
Message-ID: <4278@goanna.cs.rmit.oz.au>
Date: 15 Nov 90 05:48:22 GMT
References: <1990Oct31.014132.2400@agate.berkeley.edu> <336@brat.UUCP> <1990Nov14.223810.11268@nntp-server.caltech.edu>
Organization: Comp Sci, RMIT, Melbourne, Australia
Lines: 16

I've been waiting to see if someone would say this, but if they have
I've missed it.

The only fixed guaranteed interpretation of 'register' in C has been
that it is identical to 'auto' _except_ that when you say 'register'
*you* are promising never ever to take the address of that variable.
It's rather like 'const'; it's a way for *you* to make promises *to*
the compiler, which the compiler may but need not exploit.

Even if you have a compiler which does a superb job of register allocation
when left to itself and a lousy job when you use 'register', it may be
worth using 'register' as a debugging aid from time to time.

-- 
The problem about real life is that moving one's knight to QB3
may always be replied to with a lob across the net.  --Alasdair Macintyre.