Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!unmvax!pprg.unm.edu!hc!lll-winken!uunet!attcan!lsuc!ncrcan!ziebmef!mdfreed
From: mdfreed@ziebmef.uucp (Mark Freedman)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: return(struct) implementation
Message-ID: <1989Mar18.144546.10605@ziebmef.uucp>
Date: 18 Mar 89 19:45:45 GMT
References: <4425@pt.cs.cmu.edu> <11977@haddock.ima.isc.com>
Reply-To: mdfreed@ziebmef.UUCP (Mark Freedman)
Organization: Ziebmef Public Access Unix, Toronto, Ontario
Lines: 16

In article <11977@haddock.ima.isc.com> karl@haddock.ima.isc.com (Karl Heuer) writes:
>In article <4425@pt.cs.cmu.edu> marcoz@MARCOZ.BOLTZ.CS.CMU.EDU (Marco Zagha) writes:
>>Can anybody explain how returning a structure from a function is
>>typically implemented.  Assume it is too big to use registers.
>
>Some broken implementations use a static area in the callee and just return
>its address.  This mechanism is not reentrant, is forbidden by the pANS, and
>will be considered no further in this article.
>
   That implies that  1) the MS-DOS implementations with which I'm familiar
(Turbo-C 2.0, Datalight C 3.05, Lattice C 3.10), and probably several with
which I'm not, are broken   2) the marketeers for these companies have 
gotten a bit carried away when claiming dpANS compliance.
   Is anyone aware of MS-DOS compilers which implement structure returns 
according to dpANS ? Is anyone aware of software companies which intend to
correct the broken implementation ?