From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,dab7d920e4340f12 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: devuns@thomsoft.com (Olivier Devuns @pulsar) Subject: Re: C is 'better' than Ada because... Date: 1996/08/01 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 171404272 sender: news@thomsoft.com (USENET News Admin @flash) x-nntp-posting-host: venus references: <31e02c32.342948604@netline-fddi.jpl.nasa.gov> organization: Thomson Software Products newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1996-08-01T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: eachus@spectre.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus) writes: [snip] > A horrible example, but very true. I've worked with compilers > which generated different calling sequences for 68020, 68030, and > 68040. All link time compatible, but the differences in number of > clocks for certain instructions meant that the best sequence was > different on different processors. And, if you care, the 68040 > sequence looked the dumbest, because it was dominated by memory > fetches, so fewer instructions, fewer fetches--it actually used the > the CALLM instruction. Horrible indeed ! The CALLM instruction exists only on the '020 ... Your poor '040 must have worked hard to emulate it ;-) ! -- Olivier Devuns -- devuns@thomsoft.com | Thomson Software Products "Views expressed are my own" | San Diego, CA | http://www.thomsoft.com