From 7112516789308361616 X-Google-Thread: f78e5,52112cea9d2ccd4a X-Google-Attributes: gidf78e5,public X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news1.google.com!news3.google.com!news.glorb.com!newsgate.cistron.nl!newsfeed.wirehub.nl!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.fjserv.net!peer-uk.news.demon.net!kibo.news.demon.net!mutlu.news.demon.net!news.demon.co.uk!demon!stump.algebra.com!devnull From: caj@cs.york.ac.uk (Chris Jefferson) Newsgroups: comp.std.c++ Subject: Re: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=A75=2E2=2E2/8_unspecified_evluation_od?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?er=3F?= Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2005 18:33:20 GMT Organization: The University of York, UK Lines: 25 Sender: mail2news@demon.net Approved: fjh@cs.mu.oz.au (Fergus Henderson , moderator of comp.std.c++) Message-ID: <42E64C54.7060701@cs.york.ac.uk> References: <42E4EB01.9020700@alumina.nl> <20050725193339.5F435103B5@mscan3.ucar.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: news.news.demon.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: news.demon.co.uk 1122402808 18664 158.152.254.254 (26 Jul 2005 18:33:28 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@demon.net NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2005 18:33:28 +0000 (UTC) X-Robomod: STUMP, ichudov@algebra.com (Igor Chudov) X-User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (Windows/20041206) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at cs.mu.OZ.AU X-Path: comp-std-cpp-robomod!not-for-mail X-Received: (from fjh@localhost) by mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.9/Submit) id j6QIXJEm003691; Wed, 27 Jul 2005 04:33:19 +1000 (EST) X-NNTP-Posting-Date: 26 Jul 2005 14:42:29 GMT X-Delivered-To: std-c++@ucar.edu X-Authentication-Warning: mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU: fjh set sender to devnull@stump.algebra.com using -f X-York-MailScanner-From: news@york.ac.uk X-Newsgroups: comp.std.c++ X-York-MailScanner: Found to be clean Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.std.c++:1503 (Apologises that this message drifts slightly implementation-specific, but it is I feel unavoidable considering the context). Hyman Rosen wrote: > Second, pushing an argument onto the call stack is no > more efficient than first allocating sufficient space > for all the arguments and then simply moving each > parameter into the appropriate slot. > While I personally would prefer if the order of execution was indeed fixed, are you sure of this assertion? I had a quick poke, and it looks to me like it is (slightly) more efficent to push the arguments onto the call stack > Third, non-legacy architectures tend to pass their > parameters in registers rather than the stack. > I believe that it is standard on x86 to pass quite a lot of things on the stack rather than in registers, at least compared to ppc. --- [ comp.std.c++ is moderated. To submit articles, try just posting with ] [ your news-reader. If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu ] [ --- Please see the FAQ before posting. --- ] [ FAQ: http://www.jamesd.demon.co.uk/csc/faq.html ]