Article View: comp.std.c
Article #1930Re: MIPS varargs (Was Re: Reality check)
From: Barry Margolin
Date: Sat, 03 Nov 1990 23:55
Date: Sat, 03 Nov 1990 23:55
21 lines
1430 bytes
1430 bytes
In article <14322@smoke.brl.mil> gwyn@smoke.brl.mil (Doug Gwyn) writes:
>In article <108077@convex.convex.com> gargulak@mozart.convex.com (Tom Gargulak) writes:
>>For example, the following two functions will have different codegen.
>> test(Xa_alist) {}
>> test(va_alist) {}
>>No include files required.
>Well, that's clearly wrong behavior, since both these are merely functions
>having a single int-valued parameter.
If the code generated by each version has the same high level results, why
is it wrong? Perhaps there might be miniscule performance differences, but
does the any C specification say anything about relative performance of
code generated from different pieces of source?
I'd say that the behavior of this compiler is surprising, perhaps even
undesirable, but I think it would be allowed by most language specs.
--
Barry Margolin, Thinking Machines Corp.
barmar@think.com
{uunet,harvard}!think!barmar
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<1990Nov3.235539.24204@Think.COM>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!att!att!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!think.com!barmarReferences:
<14199@smoke.BRL.MIL> <108077@convex.convex.com> <14322@smoke.brl.mil>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!att!att!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!think.com!barmar From: barmar@think.com (Barry Margolin) Newsgroups: comp.std.c Subject: Re: MIPS varargs (Was Re: Reality check) Message-ID: <1990Nov3.235539.24204@Think.COM> Date: 3 Nov 90 23:55:39 GMT References: <14199@smoke.BRL.MIL> <108077@convex.convex.com> <14322@smoke.brl.mil> Sender: news@Think.COM Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge MA, USA Lines: 21