Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!caip!brl-adm!brl-smoke!smoke!rbj@icst-cmr From: rbj@icst-cmr (Root Boy Jim) Newsgroups: net.lang.c Subject: Re: Register Addresses Message-ID: <2073@brl-smoke.ARPA> Date: Thu, 10-Jul-86 10:54:00 EDT Article-I.D.: brl-smok.2073 Posted: Thu Jul 10 10:54:00 1986 Date-Received: Sat, 12-Jul-86 03:59:27 EDT Sender: news@brl-smoke.ARPA Lines: 29 RBJ-> >But Wait! That's a Mimic! Register variables are really fast auto >variables, so after `f' returns, your static_p is worthless anyhow. Gwyn-> But the objection is still valid. If the compiler were to fake up some addressable storage for a copy of a register variable, then afterward it would need to ensure that the contents of that location track the contents of the register, since the pointer could then be legitimately used to refer to the data in the register. This would negate the whole point of "register". Would it? Okay, so we have to pushmi-pullyu the register anytime we call any function, or reference any global variable starwise, or perhaps reference either the result of the function or even any arguments originally passed by reference. This is starting to get compilicated! Anyone for a 500k C Compiler? It would probably still be smaller and faster than ADA :-) Dennis knew what he was doing. The restriction of & applied to a register variable is deliberate and sensible. I agree. I was merely speculating on the tradeoff's involved. So when are they going to start making droids with addressable registers again? (Root Boy) Jim Cottrell He is the MELBA-BEING...the ANGEL CAKE...XEROX him...XEROX him --