Re: Return value address

Nicola.Musatti@ObjectWay.it (Nicola Musatti)
14 Sep 2004 16:37:36 -0400

          From comp.compilers
Related articles
Return value address nicolas_capens@hotmail.com (2004-09-07)
Re: Return value address christoph.neubauer@siemens.com (Christoph Neubauer) (2004-09-08)
Re: Return value address tmk@netvision.net.il (2004-09-13)
Re: Return value address Nicola.Musatti@ObjectWay.it (2004-09-14)
Re: Return value address christoph.neubauer@siemens.com (Christoph Neubauer) (2004-09-21)
Re: Return value address kamalp@acm.org (2004-09-21)
| List of all articles for this month |
From: Nicola.Musatti@ObjectWay.it (Nicola Musatti)
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: 14 Sep 2004 16:37:36 -0400
Organization: http://groups.google.com
References: 04-09-054 04-09-069
Keywords: architecture, design
Posted-Date: 14 Sep 2004 16:37:36 EDT

"Christoph Neubauer" <christoph.neubauer@siemens.com> wrote
> What about a stack model, that allocates:
>
> r allways at 0
> arguments starting at 4
> local variables afterwards
> temp variables afterwards


In my ignorance I thought that just about every compiler worked in
this way, except maybe when return value and arguments are directly
allocated into registers. Are there reasons to do otherwise?


> [It also seemed to me that the obvious solution is for the caller to
> allocate the return value cell. -John]


Wouldn't this also give the opportunity to optimize it away, e.g. by
directly using the variable to which the function result is assigned?


Cheers,
Nicola Musatti

Post a followup to this message

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