Re: [cc65] c64 question

Date view Thread view Subject view

From: Ullrich von Bassewitz (uz_at_musoftware.de)
Date: 2001-03-19 21:34:36 

On Mon, Mar 19, 2001 at 02:26:24PM -0600, Mike McCarty wrote:
> Well, some implementations don't use a stack unless necessary, but
> rather implement arguments to routines which do not *need* to be
> re-entrant (most of them, in my experience) as statically allocated
> locations. In this case, there is no stack manipulation, hence no need
> to disable interrupts.

This is not only difficult to check (because the compiler cannot see if a
function is called from somewhere outside the module), but does also violate
the ISO C standard. So it's not really an option in my eyes, even if cc65
allows it (at least for local variables).

> Well, that enters into a whole other realm of questioning. I saw
> questions about feasibility and run time cycles, not preferences.

It's not preferences, it's "advantages" :-)

Regards


	Uz


--
Ullrich von Bassewitz                                  uz_at_musoftware.de
----------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list send mail to majordomo_at_musoftware.de with
the string "unsubscribe cc65" in the body(!) of the mail.

Date view Thread view Subject view

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : 2001-12-14 22:05:39 CET