Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c++ > #5251
| From | Lars Enderin <lars.enderin@telia.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.c++, comp.lang.python, alt.usage.english, comp.lang.c |
| Subject | Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively |
| Date | 2011-05-21 11:52 +0200 |
| Organization | albasani.net |
| Message-ID | <4DD78B70.9090804@telia.com> (permalink) |
| References | (3 earlier) <ymir57wldbn.fsf@blackcat.isi.edu> <uuOdnWAEuNKQKk7QnZ2dnUVZ8lKdnZ2d@westnet.com.au> <1228144c-303f-4c38-8ecb-8a7ad79fb3ab@s16g2000prf.googlegroups.com> <D_qdnZZNC9Kc8EnQnZ2dnUVZ8gednZ2d@westnet.com.au> <IU.D20110521.T083306.P471.Q0@J.de.Boyne.Pollard.localhost> |
Cross-posted to 4 groups.
2011-05-21 10:32, Jonathan de Boyne Pollard skrev: >> The supposed inefficiency of recursive implementations is based >> largely on the properties of hardware that is now obsolete. With >> modern processors there's no great efficiency hit. In some of the >> smaller microcontrollers, it's true, you do have to worry about stack >> overflow; but the ARM processors, for example, provide plenty of stack >> space. >> >> In the microcontroller world, the big performance hits come from the >> fact that the only available compilers are for C and sometimes C++. >> (And nobody uses assembly language except for the very little jobs.) >> The nature of the C language prevents compilers from doing >> optimisations that are standard in compilers for high-level languages. >> Most C compilers will, for example, always pass parameters on the >> stack, despite the generous supply of registers available in newer >> hardware. >> > However, some C compilers will *also* have one or more "go faster" > calling conventions that pass parameters in registers, which can be > employed. Over in the PC world, such "go faster" calling conventions > are even the default calling convention if no calling convention is > explicitly specified, for some C and C++ compilers. > > > http://homepage.ntlworld.com./jonathan.deboynepollard/FGA/function-calling-conventions.html#Compiler > > > http://homepage.ntlworld.com./jonathan.deboynepollard/FGA/function-calling-conventions.html#Optlink > > > http://homepage.ntlworld.com./jonathan.deboynepollard/FGA/function-calling-conventions.html#Watcall > Please include attributions, in this case for Peter Moylan and rusi!
Back to comp.lang.c++ | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively Jonathan de Boyne Pollard <J.deBoynePollard-newsgroups@NTLWorld.COM> - 2011-05-21 09:32 +0100
Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively Lars Enderin <lars.enderin@telia.com> - 2011-05-21 11:52 +0200
Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively Lars Enderin <lars.enderin@telia.com> - 2011-05-21 11:54 +0200
Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively Lars Enderin <lars.enderin@telia.com> - 2011-05-21 11:56 +0200
Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively Gerhard Fiedler <gelists@gmail.com> - 2011-05-21 11:33 -0300
Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-05-21 18:37 +0000
Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively Nobody <nobody@nowhere.com> - 2011-05-22 14:20 +0100
csiph-web