Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!utcs!mnetor!seismo!cmcl2!rna!cubsvax!peters From: peters@cubsvax.UUCP Newsgroups: net.lang.c Subject: Re: Compiler Specific Operators Message-ID: <503@cubsvax.UUCP> Date: Mon, 14-Jul-86 11:03:53 EDT Article-I.D.: cubsvax.503 Posted: Mon Jul 14 11:03:53 1986 Date-Received: Mon, 14-Jul-86 22:35:20 EDT References: <1825@uw-beaver> Reply-To: peters@cubsvax.UUCP (Peter S. Shenkin) Organization: Columbia Univ. Bio. CG Fac., NY Lines: 20 In article barmar@mit-eddie.UUCP (Barry Margolin) writes: > ...why not >write the operations as function calls, and teach compilers to open-code >calls to certain functions. > >Fortran, PL/I, and Lisp compilers have been doing this for years. Just >because something is written as a function call does not mean that it >has to be implemented as one. Yes; I tried to send off a similar comment on the original posting, but it never made it off site. What I'd like to know is whether the draft standard permits this, and what the net guru's think about it. In Chris Torek's comment on the original posting, he proposes a workaround permitted by the draft ANSI, and notes that it is bug-prone. If this means that the draft standard doesn't permit "function calls" to be implemented otherwise, I'm curious what the objections are to this practice. Peter S. Shenkin Columbia Univ. Biology Dept., NY, NY 10027 {philabs,rna}!cubsvax!peters cubsvax!peters@columbia.ARPA