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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,ac02560f0af03a21 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2004-01-01 17:17:09 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!newsfeed2.dallas1.level3.net!news.level3.com!crtntx1-snh1.gtei.net!news.gtei.net!newsfeed1.easynews.com!easynews.com!easynews!elnk-pas-nf1!elnk-nf2-pas!newsfeed.earthlink.net!attbi_feed4!attbi.com!attbi_s01.POSTED!not-for-mail From: tmoran@acm.org Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: GNAT parameter passing, C-style? References: X-Newsreader: Tom's custom newsreader Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: 67.161.24.134 X-Complaints-To: abuse@comcast.net X-Trace: attbi_s01 1073006228 67.161.24.134 (Fri, 02 Jan 2004 01:17:08 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 02 Jan 2004 01:17:08 GMT Organization: Comcast Online Date: Fri, 02 Jan 2004 01:17:08 GMT Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:4027 Date: 2004-01-02T01:17:08+00:00 List-Id: >Yes, and if platforms such as the Amiga had prevailed, the braindead x86 >with their crap register(s &) usage would've made the future of CPU's a >nicer place to work in (more registers that just made sense). Yes, and if platforms such as the B5500 had prevailed, we wouldn't be worrying about assembly language programming. If you have memory bandwidth to burn, but few CPU transistors, you should make the compiler or programmer decide what to put in which temporary storage for how long, and give them extra address bits to specify that storage (ie, registers). OTOH, if memory bandwidth is tight, but CPU transistors are cheap, you should make your addressing as short as possible (eg, implied registers and stack) and let the CPU cache etc control the movement of stuff in the storage heirarchy.