Path: utzoo!dptcdc!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!purdue!decwrl!sun!pitstop!sundc!seismo!uunet!portal!cup.portal.com!bcase
From: bcase@cup.portal.com (Brian bcase Case)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: Complex Instructions
Message-ID: <17296@cup.portal.com>
Date: 16 Apr 89 17:21:14 GMT
References: <807@microsoft.UUCP> <92634@sun.uucp> <13322@steinmetz.ge.com> <573@loligo.cc.fsu.edu> <5064@hubcap.clemson.edu> <3169@bd.sei.cmu.edu> <38629@bbn.COM> <17167@cup.portal.com> <1003@quintus.UUCP>
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
Lines: 13

>>And in the case of the call instruction, I find the VAX complex instruction
>>sorta insulting:  assuming that compiler writers are too stupid to adhere to
>>a common spec for inter-language call protocol.
>
>Try calling Pascal from PL/I under MVS sometime.

I don't want this to get out of hand, and it might belong elsewhere anyway.

BUT, was calling Pascal from PL/I under MVS a design goal?  If so, then why
doesn't the existence of the VAX's CALLS instruction guarantee this goal
will be met?  I guess this is yet another point:  if the CALLS instruction
was included so that inter-language calls "would just work," then it fails
even at that!