Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!rutgers!iuvax!pur-ee!uiucdcs!uxc.cso.uiuc.edu!ccvaxa!aglew
From: aglew@ccvaxa.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: What should be in hardware but isn'
Message-ID: <28200052@ccvaxa>
Date: Tue, 6-Oct-87 19:38:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: ccvaxa.28200052
Posted: Tue Oct  6 19:38:00 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 10-Oct-87 07:21:41 EDT
References: <581@l.cc.purdue.edu>
Lines: 23
Nf-ID: #R:l.cc.purdue.edu:581:ccvaxa:28200052:000:1080
Nf-From: ccvaxa.UUCP!aglew    Oct  6 18:38:00 1987


>I believe the current AT&T C compilers (Release 3) allow "Enhanced Assembly
>Language Escapes for C" which include a fairly sophisticated mechanism
>for defining asm() pseudo-macros which look like C functions.  Does anyone
>know how much this "cost" in compiler effort?  
> 
>Robert Bradbury

I'd heard about this, and had been hoping to play with it when I received
my AT&T 3B1 UNIX PC, running 3.5.1, which I thought was up to R3.

But, if this compiler has these pseudo-functions, they're well hidden.

Does anyone know if they exist on the 3B1?

Andy "Krazy" Glew. Gould CSD-Urbana.    USEnet:  ihnp4!uiucdcs!ccvaxa!aglew
1101 E. University, Urbana, IL 61801    ARPAnet: aglew@gswd-vms.arpa

I always felt that disclaimers were silly and affected, but there are people
who let themselves be affected by silly things, so: my opinions are my own,
and not the opinions of my employer, or any other organisation with which I am
affiliated. I indicate my employer only so that other people may account for
any possible bias I may have towards my employer's products or systems.