Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!linac!att!news.cs.indiana.edu!nstn.ns.ca!bonnie.concordia.ca!ccu.umanitoba.ca!tilley
From: tilley@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Richard Tilley)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next
Subject: Re: Compiler option for Rel 3.0????
Message-ID: <1991Mar27.062525.14935@ccu.umanitoba.ca>
Date: 27 Mar 91 06:25:25 GMT
References: <1991Mar26.141452.21620@ncsu.edu>
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada
Lines: 12

In <1991Mar26.141452.21620@ncsu.edu> jcd@ecersg.ncsu.edu (Joseph C. Davis) writes:


>i have heard all of the arguements,and know that Next left it this way 
>to help out the 030 guys.  However, wouldn't it be possible for them to 
>add a compiler option that replaced the trappable functions with the 
>proper routines that the 040 can do 'lickety split?'

Is it not usual for the trap, on first call, to check for hardware and, if
not found, change the code to call a subroutine instead of taking a trap?

Is this difficult on a 68K?