Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!husc6!bbn!uwmcsd1!leah!itsgw!batcomputer!cornell!uw-beaver!teknowledge-vaxc!sri-unix!quintus!ok
From: ok@quintus.UUCP (Richard A. O'Keefe)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Alignment [was Re: Optimization, volatile]
Message-ID: <990@cresswell.quintus.UUCP>
Date: 18 May 88 06:11:49 GMT
References: <13074@brl-adm.ARPA> <2003@rtech.UUCP> <503@wsccs.UUCP> <525@wsccs.UUCP>
Organization: Quintus Computer Systems, Mountain View, CA
Lines: 17

In article <525@wsccs.UUCP>, terry@wsccs.UUCP (Every system needs one) writes:
> [ ut-oh.  They got me started on SPARC again...]
> In article <503@wsccs.UUCP> (he wrote):
> | >This is the method one should use to determine if code is "bad"... but I
> | >suggest you do not use a SUN 400* (matches all SUN 400 series) as your Sun,
> | >as some of the assumptions it makes are _NOT_ K&R.

> Can you say alignment?

The alignment requirements of the SPARC are *less* restrictive than
the requirements of Motorola's MC 88100.

-- 
--- 
ARPANET: quintus!ok@SUN.COM		| Logic programming:
UUCP:    ok@quintus.uucp		|   Prolog is only the beginning.
         ...!{sun,pyramid}!quintus!ok	| Elegance is not an option!