From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.5-pre1 (2020-06-20) on ip-172-31-74-118.ec2.internal X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.5-pre1 Date: 24 Sep 92 06:51:36 GMT From: cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!utcsri!geac!torsqnt!uuno rth!eyepoint!alvin@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Alvin Starr) Subject: Re: Using Global Variables Message-ID: <1992Sep24.065136.4297@eyepoint.com> List-Id: crispen@efftoo.boeing.com (crispen) writes: >Which is why I wonder about designs that use common memory "for speed". >Did these designs begin as data-flow-controlled designs, and the >common memory was retrofitted when the speed *actually* was too slow? Is it possible that you are confusing static variables with variables that are keep on a stack or display. And before someone jumpes on me about how memory inefficient that allocating variables staticaly is, a little program flow analsys can be used to overlay unused memory areas(I have done it before for a pascal compiler on a machine that had no stacks or index registers). The result is a program that looks like it has no global variables but runs like it does. -- Alvin Starr || voice: (416)513-6717 Eyepoint Inc. || fax: (416)513-6718 alvin@eyepoint.com ||