From 5368155796780511322 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: f78e5,a69618ea97f65037 X-Google-Attributes: gidf78e5,public From: "Paul D. DeRocco" Subject: Re: nested functions Date: 1998/05/08 Message-ID: <35527806.B15610C5@ix.netcom.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 352011721 X-NNTP-Posting-Host: bst-ma6-22.ix.netcom.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Approved: stephen.clamage@sun.com (comp.std.c++) References: <6hac23$8lb$1@news2.isdnet.net> <353F904F.2EFDC21D@ix.netcom.com> X-UID: 0000000001 X-Status: $$$T Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Organization: Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy X-NETCOM-Date: Thu May 07 10:14:26 PM CDT 1998 Mime-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.std.c++ Originator: clamage@taumet J. Kanze wrote: > > "Paul D. DeRocco" writes: > > |> However, allowing recursion is only a small increase in > |> complexity. The > |> mechanism for remembering the context of the original call (i.e., > |> the > |> address of the enclosing stack frame) is well-understood, and is > |> even > |> built into the x86 ENTER instruction. > > Correct. But none of the x86 C/C++ compilers I know use this > instruction, because it costs more time than a simple PUSH EBP; MOV > EBP,ESP sequence. (Or has this changed? It's been some time since I > last looked at the generated output of a C/C++ compiler on an Intel > processor.) No, the compilers I use avoid ENTER/LEAVE. I'm merely saying that the algorithm is well-known, and that ENTER would probably be more efficient for nested functions, even though it isn't for non-nested ones. -- Ciao, Paul [ 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://reality.sgi.com/austern_mti/std-c++/faq.html ]