|Return value address email@example.com (2004-09-07)|
|Re: Return value address firstname.lastname@example.org (Christoph Neubauer) (2004-09-08)|
|Re: Return value address email@example.com (2004-09-13)|
|Re: Return value address Nicola.Musatti@ObjectWay.it (2004-09-14)|
|Re: Return value address firstname.lastname@example.org (Christoph Neubauer) (2004-09-21)|
|Re: Return value address email@example.com (2004-09-21)|
|From:||"Christoph Neubauer" <firstname.lastname@example.org>|
|Date:||21 Sep 2004 22:17:25 -0400|
|Organization:||Siemens AG Austria|
|References:||04-09-054 04-09-069 04-09-100|
|Posted-Date:||21 Sep 2004 22:17:25 EDT|
"Nicola Musatti" <Nicola.Musatti@ObjectWay.it> wrote in message
> "Christoph Neubauer" <email@example.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?
Hi Nicola !
I don't know many different compilers and/or stack models.
All of them return function result either on '0' or in register(s).
Further I don't know any reason to do it some other way.
> > [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?
As I see it:: No.
If you generate code for a certain function, you don't know anything
about the 'dynamic surrounding', where the function is called from !
(Despite some knowledge/optimizations for recursive calls)
What you (maybe ?) could do is:
Pass the address of the variable to the function call (as hidden argument)
Use this address for -indirect- assignment of the result.
--> No performance win at all
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.