Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.compilers > #3298
| From | Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.compilers |
| Subject | Re: another C-like language? was Compilers :) |
| Date | 2023-01-09 11:24 -0800 |
| Organization | None to speak of |
| Message-ID | <23-01-030@comp.compilers> (permalink) |
| References | (1 earlier) <23-01-002@comp.compilers> <23-01-003@comp.compilers> <23-01-008@comp.compilers> <23-01-020@comp.compilers> <23-01-024@comp.compilers> |
David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes:
[...]
>> [In a mutant version of C with nested scopes, I suppose so, but when C compilers
>> ran in 24K bytes, it didn't. -John]
>
> I don't have my copy of K&R handy, or a pre-K&R Unix C manuals, but I
> expect someone will correct me if I'm wrong :-) As far as I know, the C
> described in "The C Programming Language" in 1978, when 24 KB was still
> a big deal, supported declarations at the start of any compound
> statement block. That is, nested scopes. It's possible that pre-K&R C
> compilers were more limited.
> [I actually used that 24K C compiler in about 1975 and I am reasonably sure
> it did not let you put declarations other than in the outer block. There's
> a 1978 edition of K&R at archive.org and by then it did let you put
> declarations in any block. It's a little harder than what you say because
> declarations in non-overlapping blocks should overlay each other, e.g.:
>
> foo() {
> int a:
> ...
> {
> int b[100];
> somefunc(b);
> }
> {
> float c[100];
> otherfunc(c);
> }
> }
>
> you want b and c to use the same storage. It's not hard, but it's a little
> more than promoting and renaming. -John]
The 1975 C reference manual <https://www.bell-labs.com/usr/dmr/www/cman.pdf>
allows declarations at the top of a function body but not at the top of
a compound statement. K&R1 (1978) does allow declarations at the top of
a compound statement.
In the example above, you'd certainly *want* b and c to use the same
storage, but the language doesn't require it. But it's a simple enough
optimization that I'd expect all compilers to do it (or something more
sophisticated). Also, a compiler could either generate code that
allocates storage for each block on entry to the block, or that
allocates the maximum size on entry to the function. I haven't bothered
to look into what compilers actually do. (And it gets more complicated
if you introduce variable-length arrays.)
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
Working, but not speaking, for XCOM Labs
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */
[On a PDP-11 or Vax, adjusting the size of local storage was a single
instruction to adjust the stack pointer at the entry to or exit from
each block. In the example above, imagine that between the two blocks
is a call to bloatfunc() which has a large stack frame and you can see
why it would have been worth it. I will admit that if you had goto
statements, that made it considerably messier. -John]
Back to comp.compilers | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar
Compilers :) "Tristan B. Velloza Kildaire" <deavmi@redxen.eu> - 2023-01-02 12:28 +0200
Re: Compilers :) Spiros Bousbouras <spibou@gmail.com> - 2023-01-02 20:52 +0000
Re: another C-like language? was Compilers :) Steve Limb <stephenjohnlimb@gmail.com> - 2023-01-03 16:24 +0000
Re: another C-like language? was Compilers :) gah4 <gah4@u.washington.edu> - 2023-01-03 12:52 -0800
Re: another C-like language? was Compilers :) arnold@skeeve.com (Aharon Robbins) - 2023-01-04 17:12 +0000
Re: another C-like language? was Compilers :) gah4 <gah4@u.washington.edu> - 2023-01-04 12:39 -0800
Re: another C-like language? was Compilers :) "marb...@yahoo.co.uk" <marblypup@yahoo.co.uk> - 2023-01-05 06:27 -0800
Re: another C-like language? was Compilers :) gah4 <gah4@u.washington.edu> - 2023-01-05 16:26 -0800
Re: another C-like language? was Compilers :) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-01-06 15:39 +0100
Re: another C-like language? was Compilers :) Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-01-09 17:41 +0000
Re: another C-like language? was Compilers :) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-01-10 17:48 +0100
Re: another C-like language? was Compilers :) gah4 <gah4@u.washington.edu> - 2023-01-10 15:13 -0800
Re: another C-like language? was Compilers :) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-01-11 13:38 +0100
Re: back in the 60s, another C-like language? was Compilers :) gah4 <gah4@u.washington.edu> - 2023-01-11 16:38 -0800
Re: another C-like language? was Compilers :) "marb...@yahoo.co.uk" <marblypup@yahoo.co.uk> - 2023-01-15 04:26 -0800
Re: another C-like language? was Compilers :) Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-01-11 11:02 +0000
Re: Scheme is not another C-like language? was Compilers :) George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> - 2023-01-12 02:54 -0500
Re: another C-like language? was Compilers :) Bill Findlay <findlaybill@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2023-01-11 11:58 +0000
Re: another C-like language? was Compilers :) Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2023-01-11 10:49 +0000
Re: another C-like language? was Compilers :) "marb...@yahoo.co.uk" <marblypup@yahoo.co.uk> - 2023-01-15 04:21 -0800
Re: another C-like language? was Compilers :) Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> - 2023-01-15 22:01 +0000
Re: another C-like language? was Compilers :) "Luke A. Guest" <laguest@archeia.com> - 2023-01-13 18:25 +0000
Re: another C-like language? was Compilers :) George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> - 2023-01-13 17:20 -0500
Re: another C-like language? was Compilers :) Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-01-14 19:07 +0000
Re: another C-like language? was Compilers :) "marb...@yahoo.co.uk" <marblypup@yahoo.co.uk> - 2023-01-07 02:14 -0800
Re: another C-like language? was Compilers :) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-01-08 20:21 +0100
Re: another C-like language? was Compilers :) Hans-Peter Diettrich <DrDiettrich1@netscape.net> - 2023-01-09 04:48 +0100
Re: C scopes, another C-like language? was Compilers :) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-01-09 18:12 +0100
Re: another C-like language? was Compilers :) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-01-09 11:24 -0800
Re: Compilers :) "Tristan B. Velloza Kildaire" <deavmi@redxen.eu> - 2023-01-13 13:41 +0200
Re: Compilers :) Hans-Peter Diettrich <DrDiettrich1@netscape.net> - 2023-01-05 01:12 +0100
Re: Compilers :) "Tristan B. Velloza Kildaire" <deavmi@redxen.eu> - 2023-01-13 14:17 +0200
Re: C and Java, was Compilers :) gah4 <gah4@u.washington.edu> - 2023-01-13 10:32 -0800
Re: C and Java, was Compilers :) gah4 <gah4@u.washington.edu> - 2023-01-13 12:39 -0800
Re: C and Java, was Compilers :) dave_thompson_2@comcast.net - 2023-01-28 10:37 -0500
Re: C and archtecture, C and Java, was Compilers :) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-01-29 19:37 -0800
Re: C and Java, was Compilers :) gah4 <gah4@u.washington.edu> - 2023-01-29 21:39 -0800
csiph-web