Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!bbn!mit-eddie!bloom-beacon!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mailrus!nrl-cmf!cmcl2!brl-adm!adm!MAILER%ALASKA.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU
From: MAILER%ALASKA.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Undelivered mail
Message-ID: <12270@brl-adm.ARPA>
Date: 12 Mar 88 05:23:08 GMT
Sender: news@brl-adm.ARPA
Lines: 31

Subject:  Re: Portable "asm" (Was: The D Programming Language)

[Non-Deliverable:  User does not exist or has never logged on]

Reply-To: Info-C@BRL.ARPA

Received: From UWAVM(MAILER) by ALASKA with Jnet id 6572
          for SXJVK@ALASKA; Fri, 11 Mar 88 20:08 AST
Received: by UWAVM (Mailer X1.25) id 4412; Fri, 11 Mar 88 21:08:08 PST
Date:         Mon, 7 Mar 88 22:42:20 GMT
Reply-To:     Info-C@BRL.ARPA
Sender:       Info-C List <INFO-C@NDSUVM1>
From:         Tim Boemker <boemker@hpfcdc.HP.COM>
Subject:      Re: Portable "asm" (Was: The D Programming Language)
Comments: To: info-c@brl-smoke.arpa
To:           Vic Kapella <SXJVK@ALASKA>

Since the interface between C and in-line asm seems to be so
problematic (not to mention non-portable), why not write
those routines that should be written in assembly in assembly?

(Please don't tell me about needing just a rotate here or there
for performance; reconsider the original partitioning of the task
and find an alternative that separates the high-level part and
the low-level part.)

(Yes, I have written separately compiled assembly routines, and
I have repartitioned tasks to find an aesthetically appealing,
efficient alternative.)

Tim Boemker