Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!att!ucbvax!bloom-beacon!dont-send-mail-to-path-lines
From: diane@drao.nrc.ca (Diane Parchomchuk)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.x
Subject: RISKYy DEC/ULTIRX/X
Message-ID: <190*diane@drao.nrc.ca>
Date: 14 Feb 91 08:16:00 GMT
Sender: daemon@athena.mit.edu (Mr Background)
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 17

Because of my limited knowledge of C/RISC the ordering of parameters was
explained to me locally as one of sizing, obviously from comments on the net
this was not correct interpretation of the problem, alignment is *different*.

Its just that (whine) us poor individuals who have learned C on UN-RISCY
machines are not aware of this situation (end of whine).

Are X intrinsic routines and structures from X written to be robust enough
to adhere to the RISC architecture requirements?
 
To be fair to the Decspurts they exactly explained the situation in terms of
alignment -- I however don't know why compilers can't deal with this
correctly so any alignment problem may cause inefficiency but at least work.

Is this part of Ansii C? 

Diane