Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!rutgers!sri-spam!mordor!lll-lcc!pyramid!batcomputer!braner
From: braner@batcomputer.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Order of registers
Message-ID: <195@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu>
Date: Tue, 17-Feb-87 01:20:28 EST
Article-I.D.: batcompu.195
Posted: Tue Feb 17 01:20:28 1987
Date-Received: Thu, 19-Feb-87 06:19:41 EST
References: <3950004@nucsrl.UUCP> <83@ucdavis.UUCP>
Reply-To: braner@batcomputer.UUCP (braner)
Organization: Theory Center, Cornell University, Ithaca NY
Lines: 19
Summary: Keep it as in K&R!

In article <4141@utcsri.UUCP> flaps@utcsri.UUCP (Alan J Rosenthal) writes:

>	f(nformal)
>	int nformal;
>	{
>		register int i,n = nformal;

>, which is often recommended, wastes an int on all machines.

"Wastes an int"???  - nformal is on the stack anyway, so if you use
"register" before the '{' the compiler copies it to a register.
Therefore the code above is IDENTICAL in effect - but leaves the
ORDER of "register" assignments up to the programmer.

I support the K&R method of the compiler following the programmer's
order until registers are used up.  After all, C is supposed to give
the programmer as much control of the machine as possible.

- Moshe Braner