Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.
| Related articles |
|---|
| Different string format options, benefits? coxs2@rpi.edu (Sean C. Cox) (1991-10-16) |
| Re: Different string format options, benefits? pardo@cs.washington.edu (1991-10-17) |
| Re: Different string format options, benefits? pk@cs.tut.fi (1991-10-18) |
| Re: Different string format options, benefits? agulbra@Siri.Unit.NO (1991-10-18) |
| Re: Different string format options, benefits? db@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Dave Berry) (1991-10-20) |
| Re: Different string format options, benefits? tm@well.sf.ca.us (1991-10-22) |
| Re: Different string format options, benefits? buzzard@eng.umd.edu (1991-10-25) |
| Re: Different string format options, benefits? henry@zoo.toronto.edu (1991-10-25) |
| Re: Different string format options, benefits? sdm7g@aemsun.med.virginia.edu (1991-11-01) |
| Re: Different string format options, benefits? bliss@sp64.csrd.uiuc.edu (1991-11-05) |
| Newsgroups: | comp.compilers |
| From: | agulbra@Siri.Unit.NO (Arnt Gulbrandsen) |
| Keywords: | code, C |
| Organization: | University of Trondheim, Norway |
| References: | 91-10-061 91-10-072 |
| Date: | Fri, 18 Oct 91 18:31:22 GMT |
Sean C. Cox <coxs2@rpi.edu> writes:
>[Tradeoffs of <size,bytes> vs <bytes,null> representation?]
On machines with very few registers it might be much faster to copy
<bytes,null> strings; 8 or 12-bit machines might require two registers to
store the length, and I know of one processor which only *has* three
registers. (The 6502.)
Today, with 32-bit architectures and loads of registers, it seems that
<size,bytes> is the better alternative. You have to align the string
anyway, and a single 32-bit register is necessary for the length.
--
Arnt Gulbrandsen agulbra@siri.unit.no
--
Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.