Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mailrus!ames!pasteur!ucbvax!decwrl!pyramid!prls!philabs!micomvax!ray From: ray@micomvax.UUCP (Ray Dunn) Newsgroups: comp.lang.c Subject: Re: Variable argument lists. Message-ID: <1068@micomvax.UUCP> Date: 20 May 88 19:51:28 GMT References: <14139@brl-adm.ARPA> <7864@alice.UUCP> <1740@rpp386.UUCP> <7893@brl-smoke.ARPA> Reply-To: ray@micomvax.UUCP (Ray Dunn) Organization: Philips Electronics Ltd. (TDS - Montreal) St. Laurent QC, Canada Lines: 26 Posted: Fri May 20 15:51:28 1988 In article <7893@brl-smoke.ARPA> gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB) ) writes: >In article <1740@rpp386.UUCP> jfh@rpp386.UUCP (The Beach Bum) writes: >>the addition of an extra instruction to stack the number of arguments >>can hardly be considered significantly slowing down a function call. > >WRONG. Multiply the extra cost per function call by the number of >function calls per day, to see how much computer time you would be >wasting each day. > >Function call overhead is so significant that.... I'm not too happy pointing this out, but really!! Am I totally up the wall, or is this the same person who berated me recently for suggesting that "cdecl" in Microsoft C on the PC was A Good Thing because amongst other things, it conveniently enabled the saving of an instruction per function call? From the argument above, even if that was the *only* reason for "cdecl", then it would be A Good Thing (and it *is*)! -- Ray Dunn. | UUCP: ..!{philabs, mnetor}!micomvax!ray Philips Electronics Ltd. | TEL : (514) 744-8200 Ext: 2347 600 Dr Frederik Philips Blvd | FAX : (514) 744-6455 St Laurent. Quebec. H4M 2S9 | TLX : 05-824090