[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Chicken-hackers] Argvector handling - maybe we could do better at t
From: |
felix . winkelmann |
Subject: |
Re: [Chicken-hackers] Argvector handling - maybe we could do better at that |
Date: |
Tue, 16 Feb 2016 22:43:08 +0100 |
> > So if we could convince the C compiler to pass the argvector - and as we
> > where about changing things the argument count too - in a global
> > *register* variable, then we needed zero allocation for most cps calls.
Careful. Global register variables increase register pressure in the compiler,
expose optimizer bugs and aren't overly portable. A simple static variable
should
be the better alternative.
felix
- [Chicken-hackers] Argvector handling - maybe we could do better at that, Jörg F . Wittenberger, 2016/02/16
- Re: [Chicken-hackers] Argvector handling - maybe we could do better at that, Peter Bex, 2016/02/16
- Re: [Chicken-hackers] Argvector handling - maybe we could do better at that,
felix . winkelmann <=
- Re: [Chicken-hackers] Argvector handling - maybe we could do better at that, Peter Bex, 2016/02/16
- Re: [Chicken-hackers] Argvector handling - maybe we could do better at that, Jörg F . Wittenberger, 2016/02/17
- Re: [Chicken-hackers] Argvector handling - maybe we could do better at that, Jörg F . Wittenberger, 2016/02/17
- Re: [Chicken-hackers] Argvector handling - maybe we could do better at that, Jörg F . Wittenberger, 2016/02/19
- Re: [Chicken-hackers] Argvector handling - maybe we could do better at that, Peter Bex, 2016/02/19
- Re: [Chicken-hackers] Argvector handling - maybe we could do better at that, Jörg F . Wittenberger, 2016/02/19
- Re: [Chicken-hackers] Argvector handling - maybe we could do better at that, Peter Bex, 2016/02/19
- Re: [Chicken-hackers] Argvector handling - maybe we could do better at that, Jörg F . Wittenberger, 2016/02/23