Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!helios.ee.lbl.gov!pasteur!ames!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!bloom-beacon!mit-eddie!bbn!spdcc!ima!haddock!karl
From: karl@haddock.ima.isc.com (Karl Heuer)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Portability of passing/operating on structures...
Message-ID: <9704@haddock.ima.isc.com>
Date: 20 Oct 88 02:08:02 GMT
References: <8810111934.AA21941@ucbarpa.Berkeley.EDU> <2685@hound.UUCP>
Reply-To: karl@haddock.ima.isc.com (Karl Heuer)
Organization: Interactive Systems, Boston
Lines: 10

In article <2685@hound.UUCP> rkl1@hound.UUCP (K.LAUX) writes:
>[re struct copy]
>	*Why* would you want to do this anyway?  It is far easier to use
>pointers (and much more efficient).

Whether it's easier depends on what you're trying to do.  Whether it's more
efficient depends on what you're doing and on how good the compiler is.
(Quality implementations will return a small struct in the registers, as is
already customary for builtin types.)

Karl W. Z. Heuer (ima!haddock!karl or karl@haddock.isc.com), The Walking Lint