Xref: utzoo comp.lang.c:9462 comp.sys.ibm.pc:14607
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!mailrus!ames!necntc!ima!cfisun!lakart!dg
From: dg@lakart.UUCP (David Goodenough)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c,comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: 'near' and 'far' keywords
Message-ID: <53@lakart.UUCP>
Date: 18 Apr 88 13:34:21 GMT
References: <4811@chinet.UUCP> <146@obie.UUCP>
Organization: Lake - The systems people
Lines: 20

From article <4811@chinet.UUCP>, by dag@chinet.UUCP (Daniel A. Glasser):
> In article <146@obie.UUCP> wes@obie.UUCP (Barnacle Wes) writes:
>>So why should we force these MS-DOSisms on the rest of the C-speaking
>>world? ..... Tell me, what does "near" mean on a 68000 system? .....
> 
> Although I agree fully with Wes's comments about MS-DOSisms, the common
> extensions 'near' and 'far' can be used to some benifit in a 68000 compiler.
> The architecture of the 68000 is such that PC Relative calls and data
> references are faster and smaller than their absolute counterparts, .....

Yes, however that should be the job of the linker to spot which should be
used - someting like the jbr pseudo instruction on the PDP-11: it created
a short branch (+-127) if it could otherwise it created a long branch. With
the way optimizing compilers and related products are being created, I
refuse to believe that this is impossible.
--
	dg@lakart.UUCP - David Goodenough		+---+
							| +-+-+
	....... !harvard!adelie!cfisun!lakart!dg	+-+-+ |
						  	  +---+