Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watnot!watmath!clyde!cbatt!ihnp4!ihlpg!steffen
From: steffen@ihlpg.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c,comp.unix.questions
Subject: Re: Question on large arrays in C
Message-ID: <2959@ihlpg.ATT.COM>
Date: Thu, 26-Feb-87 13:21:51 EST
Article-I.D.: ihlpg.2959
Posted: Thu Feb 26 13:21:51 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 28-Feb-87 04:33:05 EST
References: <1051@uwmacc.UUCP> <4124@utcsri.UUCP> <1514@ttrdc.UUCP> <80@umich.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories - Naperville, Illinois
Lines: 18
Xref: utgpu comp.lang.c:1154 comp.unix.questions:1195
Summary: This is a bug in all PCC1 compilers I've encountered here at AT&T Bell Labs.  It's easy to fix in some, but hard in others that expect the asembler comm psudo-op to mean global data.

> > 					  A "static" declaration in C,
> > either inside or outside of a function, I have found to result in each
> > and every byte being initialized data.  Ugh.
> >--dan levy
> 
> Then you have been dealing with some VERY POOR compilers.  Allocating code file
> space for bss data which gets initialized to 0 is absurd, since it is trivial
> to build prologue code (which will probably run faster than loading from disk)
> to handle this.

This is a bug in all PCC1 compilers I've encountered here at AT&T
Bell Labs.  It's easy to fix in some, but hard in others that expect
the asembler comm psuedo-op to mean global data. (Uninitialized global data
uses the comm psuedo-op.)
-- 


	Joe Steffen, AT&T Bell Labs, Naperville, IL, (312) 369-7395