Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!asuvax!stjhmc!p12.f56.n114.z1.fidonet.org!Chris.Gehlker
From: Chris.Gehlker@p12.f56.n114.z1.fidonet.org (Chris Gehlker)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.programmer
Subject: Re: Pascal deficiency?
Message-ID: <33179.27759EC9@stjhmc.fidonet.org>
Date: 24 Dec 90 06:20:42 GMT
Sender: ufgate@stjhmc.fidonet.org (newsout1.26)
Organization: FidoNet node 1:114/56.12 - AZ MAC UG, Phoenix AZ
Lines: 21

RM>  Here, I don't understand what the deal is with saving D7 before 
RM> use but I also don't remember Pascal calling conventions, so 
RM> this may be proper. If anyone would like to add Th Pascal 3.0 
RM> output, that would be great, too. (I decided Pascal was getting 
RM> on my nerves and the 3.0 upgrade was way too expensive for "just 
RM> to have it around.")

THINK Pascal 3.0.1 generated code identical to your 2.02 example whether I 
wrote
it as i := i + 1; or i := succ(i);  As for the C, guys from Symantic have said
 
here quite a bit that their philosophy is that if the programmer wants a 
variable
to be register, she should declare it register.  This is diametrically opposit
 
tp the MPW philsophy. 
 

--  
Uucp: ...{gatech,ames,rutgers}!ncar!asuvax!stjhmc!56.12!Chris.Gehlker
Internet: Chris.Gehlker@p12.f56.n114.z1.fidonet.org