Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watnot!watmath!clyde!rutgers!husc6!seismo!mcnc!rti-sel!dg_rtp!meissner
From: meissner@dg_rtp.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: subroutine frequency
Message-ID: <1182@dg_rtp.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 24-Feb-87 19:14:03 EST
Article-I.D.: dg_rtp.1182
Posted: Tue Feb 24 19:14:03 1987
Date-Received: Fri, 27-Feb-87 06:23:44 EST
References: <1881@homxc.UUCP> <898@moscom.UUCP> <476@mntgfx.MENTOR.COM> <651@mcgill-vision.UUCP>
Reply-To: meissner@dg_rtp.UUCP (Michael Meissner)
Organization: Data General (Languages @ Research Triangle Park, NC.)
Lines: 15

In article <651@mcgill-vision.UUCP> mouse@mcgill-vision.UUCP (der Mouse) writes:
> 	/* stuff about when to save registers deleted */
> WHAT?!?!  I can't see any reason that longjmp can't get the registers
> back - if it can't restore them easily on that architecture then just
> have setjmp save them in the jmp_buf!  What's the problem?  This will
> make longjmp basically useless, especially in the face of compilers
> that optimize non-"register" variables into registers!

Because of this, ANSI says that even auto's can be trashed by longjmp.
That the biz.... (there was also a contingent to remove longjmp/setjmp
completely because they are such a wart, but that is another story....)
-- 
	Michael Meissner, Data General	Uucp: ...mcnc!rti-sel!dg_rtp!meissner

It is 11pm, do you know what your sendmail and uucico are doing?