Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site brl-tgr.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!think!harvard!seismo!brl-tgr!tgr!cottrell@NBS-VMS.ARPA
From: cottrell@NBS-VMS.ARPA (COTTRELL, JAMES)
Newsgroups: net.lang.c
Subject: Short Regs
Message-ID: <2193@brl-tgr.ARPA>
Date: Wed, 16-Oct-85 14:15:31 EDT
Article-I.D.: brl-tgr.2193
Posted: Wed Oct 16 14:15:31 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 18-Oct-85 01:24:39 EDT
Sender: news@brl-tgr.ARPA
Lines: 20

/* Ron Natalie is quibbling with me:
> > Yes it will work. But how well? Some systems (notably BSD) ignore
> > register short definitions for example. This style allows (& requires
> > in certain cases) the porter to choose his tradeoffs globally.
> 
> It doesn't ignore register short definitions, it mearly does not put them
> in registers because registers can only be applied to types int and long
> on VAX.  Or whould you have sizeof (int) return different numbers depending
> on whether it's in a register or not?

Of course it doesn't ignore them *completely*, only the *register* part!
As for sizeof, I don't know what you're talking about. I never said that.

I suppose there are real problems with register shorts. What are they?
It seems that the VAX registers can be treated like the 68000 D-regs.
The 68000 (Unisys V7-like) didn't seem to to mind reg shorts or chars.

	jim		cottrell@nbs
*/
------