Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84 exptools; site whuxl.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!whuxl!mike
From: mike@whuxl.UUCP (BALDWIN)
Newsgroups: net.lang.c
Subject: Re: soundex algorithm wanted
Message-ID: <1244@whuxl.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 11-Sep-86 13:43:27 EDT
Article-I.D.: whuxl.1244
Posted: Thu Sep 11 13:43:27 1986
Date-Received: Fri, 12-Sep-86 07:34:24 EDT
References: <27@houligan.UUCP> <672@bnrmtv.UUCP> <1239@whuxl.UUCP> <3266@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Whippany
Lines: 19

> In article <1239@whuxl.UUCP> mike@whuxl.UUCP (BALDWIN) writes:
> >	register char	c, lc, prev = '0';
> 
> All the compilers I have used ignore the `register' on `register
> char' declarations.  In any case, an `int' will hold everything
> that will fit in a `char', and is (usually) the `natural word size'
> of the machine.  Is there ever any reason to declare a variable
> `register char' rather than `register int'?  Are there any extant
> compilers for which the latter will generate *worse* code?

On a 3B20, `register char c' is indeed put in a register, and
generates exactly the same code as `register int c', except
the instruction is `cmpb' instead of `cmpw'.  Of course there's
a reason for declaring a variable as char instead of int; if it
is used as a char, it should be declared char.
-- 
						Michael Baldwin
			(not the opinions of)	AT&T Bell Laboratories
						{at&t}!whuxl!mike