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: <505@cubsvax.UUCP> Date: Tue, 15-Jul-86 11:22:05 EDT Article-I.D.: cubsvax.505 Posted: Tue Jul 15 11:22:05 1986 Date-Received: Wed, 16-Jul-86 03:34:08 EDT References: <1825@uw-beaver> <503@cubsvax.UUCP> 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. >In article <503@cubsvax.UUCP> peters@cubsvax.UUCP (Peter S. Shenkin) replies: >> ... What I'd like to know is whether the draft >>standard permits this, and what the net guru's think about it. In article chris@maryland.UUCP (Chris Torek) writes: >Apparently the committee (or a large faction thereof) is quite >concerned about ensuring that there is some easy way to ensure a >`real function call'. Yes, apparently so, but WHY? What the hell difference does it make, from the user's point of view? That is, why should he ever be anything other than happy, if some alternative invoked by the compiler produces faster- running code? Peter S. Shenkin Columbia Univ. Biology Dept., NY, NY 10027 {philabs,rna}!cubsvax!peters cubsvax!peters@columbia.ARPA