Re: Order of argument evaluation in C++, etc.

jmccarty@spdmail.spd.dsccc.com (Mike McCarty)
Thu, 24 Aug 1995 19:05:10 GMT

          From comp.compilers

Related articles
[35 earlier articles]
Re: Order of argument evaluation in C++, etc. jan@neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de (1995-08-21)
Re: Order of argument evaluation in C++, etc. bill@amber.ssd.hcsc.com (1995-08-21)
Re: Order of argument evaluation in C++, etc. burley@gnu.ai.mit.edu (1995-08-23)
Re: Order of argument evaluation in C++, etc. jthill@netcom.com (1995-08-24)
Re: Order of argument evaluation in C++, etc. hbaker@netcom.com (1995-08-23)
Re: Order of argument evaluation in C++, etc. way@cis.udel.edu (Thomas Way) (1995-08-23)
Re: Order of argument evaluation in C++, etc. jmccarty@spdmail.spd.dsccc.com (1995-08-24)
Re: Order of argument evaluation in C++, etc. daniels@cse.ogi.edu (1995-08-24)
Re: Order of argument evaluation in C++, etc. pardo@cs.washington.edu (1995-08-25)
Re: Order of argument evaluation in C++, etc. hbaker@netcom.com (1995-08-25)
Re: Order of argument evaluation in C++, etc. jan@neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de (1995-08-25)
Re: Order of argument evaluation in C++, etc. stefan.monnier@epfl.ch (Stefan Monnier) (1995-08-28)
Re: Order of argument evaluation in C++, etc. chase@centerline.com (1995-08-28)
[1 later articles]
| List of all articles for this month |

Newsgroups: comp.compilers
From: jmccarty@spdmail.spd.dsccc.com (Mike McCarty)
Keywords: C++, optimize
Organization: DSC Communications Corporation, Plano, Texas USA
References: 95-08-034 95-08-124
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 1995 19:05:10 GMT

Paul Eggert (eggert@twinsun.com) writes:
> For example, the C Standard, by my reading, does not define the
> behavior of `F()+F()' if F's definition is `int F() {return x++;}',


Mark Brader <msb@sq.com> wrote:
)Yep. In fact, I remember that either during the public review of the
)C standard or in a private communication with the redactor, I suggested
)that it should explain what it meant to call a function. The response
)as to the effect that this is a general concept in programming languages
)and everyone knows what it means, and I accepted that. But this matter
)of disagreement showed that I was wrong to do so!


Interesting. I disagree with whatever source you used. I don't even
like the word "call", but prefer "invoke". I have used (and written a)
compilers which automatically "inlined" compiled code if it were
"called" less than a certain number of times in the source, and were
less than a certain size. I.E., it made a tradeoff between size and
speed. The emitted code was, as usual, also subject to common sub
expression removal and other optimizations as well.


Mike
--


Post a followup to this message

Return to the comp.compilers page.
Search the comp.compilers archives again.