Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site uscvax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!tektronix!hplabs!sdcrdcf!oberon!uscvax!papa
From: papa@uscvax.UUCP (Marco Papa)
Newsgroups: net.micro.amiga
Subject: Re: CSA 68020 board
Message-ID: <164@uscvax.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 25-Dec-85 02:55:31 EST
Article-I.D.: uscvax.164
Posted: Wed Dec 25 02:55:31 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 28-Dec-85 13:24:30 EST
References: <822@caip.RUTGERS.EDU>
Organization: CS&CE Depts, U.S.C., Los Angeles, CA
Lines: 37

> From: Paul Milazzo <milazzo@rice.ARPA>
> 
> Even more interesting than the increase in speed with the 68020 is that
> the results are identical for 32 bit integers with and without
> registers.  Offhand, I'd say that this C compiler doesn't do registers
> at all.  Has anyone compared the assembly code generated in these two
> cases?
> 
> If this hypothesis proves correct, we have one foo explanation for the
> incredibly poor performance of the standard Amiga on this benchmark.
...

> 				Paul G. Milazzo
> 				Dept. of Computer Science
> 				Rice University, Houston, TX

The Lattice "C" compiler manual for the IBM PC says:

"Items which are declared register are so flagged, but storage is allocated
for them anyway against either the auto or the formal storage base..."

"...This version of the compiler does not implement register variables bacause
of the comparatively limited number of registers available on the 8086 series
microprocessors. Declarations using registers are, however, accepted if 
properly made. Storage is reserved for these objects as if they had been
declared auto".

If the Amiga Lattice "C" compiler is a quick and dirty port of the IBM PC 
version, register variables are probably NOT supported even on the AMIGA.

Marco Papa
USC - Computer Science Dept.

UUCP:	...!{decvax,ucbvax,hplabs}!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!uscvax!papa
	...!{allegra,trwrb,trwspp,ism780,cithep,oberon}!uscvax!papa
CSNET:	papa@usc-cse.csnet
ARPA:	papa%usc-cse@csnet-relay.arpa