Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
| Message-ID | <4E4E4915.2030403@loria.fr> (permalink) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-08-19 13:29 +0200 |
| From | Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> |
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.c |
| Subject | Re: Hash table implementation. |
| References | <0c914904-6a93-4354-94a2-2bbeb6a53ddb@a17g2000yqk.googlegroups.com> <1313100903.379884@rcdn-nntpcache-3> <6c50701d-345b-4573-8ee7-cdd09d9498d4@a27g2000yqc.googlegroups.com> <4E45A45F.1070202@loria.fr> <wmzsGguTDN6N-pn2-4ddndJcdm3UH@JUPITER.PC-ROSENAU.DE> |
| Organization | Guest of ProXad - France |
Am 08/19/2011 10:17 AM, schrieb Herbert Rosenau: > On Fri, 12 Aug 2011 22:08:31 UTC, Jens Gustedt <Jens.Gustedt@loria.fr> > wrote: > >> Am 08/12/2011 08:55 AM, schrieb lolzy@live.nl: >>> * Why shouldn't I use the register keyword for loop variables? >> >> The register keyword is just a misnomer and has not much to do with the >> registers of your CPU. Its only purpose nowadays is that you are not >> allowed to take the address of such a variable such that it *may* be >> implemented more efficiently (e.g a CPU register or an immediate). > > No. How is that, "no"? Do you question the fact that one is not allowed to take the address of a variable with register storage class? > register is a relict from K&R1. At that time it was the istruction > to the compiler to place the variable into a CPU-register if one is > available. The naming as "register" is a relict, yes. > But since then there are more than 20 years gone. More moder compilers > are more intelligent than the mayority of programmers using them. They > can better decide which one should be in a register. So it will ignore > the keyword. With that opinion, you are not at all in allignement with the current C standard: C99> The intended use of the restrict qualifier (like the register storage C99> class) is to promote optimization, ... and AFAIR the new proposal C1x stays with this. As a the restrict keyword, register is a constract between the programmer and the compiler that helps to promote certain types of optimizations. Not more and not less. Jens
Back to comp.lang.c | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Hash table implementation. lolzy@live.nl - 2011-08-11 10:43 -0700
Re: Hash table implementation. China Blue Tip Wrench <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2011-08-11 11:25 -0700
Re: Hash table implementation. Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-08-11 11:49 -0700
Re: Hash table implementation. Ralf Damaschke <rwspam@gmx.de> - 2011-08-11 20:02 +0000
Re: Hash table implementation. Ike Naar <ike@sverige.freeshell.org> - 2011-08-11 22:02 +0000
Re: Hash table implementation. "Scott Fluhrer" <sfluhrer@ix.netcom.com> - 2011-08-11 18:14 -0400
Re: Hash table implementation. lolzy@live.nl - 2011-08-11 23:55 -0700
Re: Hash table implementation. lolzy@live.nl - 2011-08-12 01:38 -0700
Re: Hash table implementation. Nobody <nobody@nowhere.com> - 2011-08-12 09:47 +0100
Re: Hash table implementation. tom st denis <tom@iahu.ca> - 2011-08-12 06:15 -0700
Re: Hash table implementation. James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-08-12 11:34 -0400
Re: Hash table implementation. Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-08-12 08:50 -0700
Re: Hash table implementation. James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-08-12 12:24 -0400
Re: Hash table implementation. Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-08-12 08:38 -0700
Re: Hash table implementation. tom st denis <tom@iahu.ca> - 2011-08-12 10:17 -0700
Re: Hash table implementation. James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-08-12 13:54 -0400
Re: Hash table implementation. tom st denis <tom@iahu.ca> - 2011-08-12 11:30 -0700
Re: Hash table implementation. Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-08-12 20:39 +0000
Re: Hash table implementation. Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-08-12 14:08 -0700
Re: Hash table implementation. gordonb.4sxmx@burditt.org (Gordon Burditt) - 2011-08-12 20:04 -0500
Re: Hash table implementation. Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-08-12 18:40 -0700
Re: Hash table implementation. Harald van Dijk <truedfx@gmail.com> - 2011-08-13 12:59 -0700
Re: Hash table implementation. Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-08-13 02:34 +0000
Re: Hash table implementation. Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> - 2011-08-12 11:13 +0000
Re: Hash table implementation. Eric Sosman <esosman@ieee-dot-org.invalid> - 2011-08-12 07:24 -0400
Re: Hash table implementation. Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2011-08-12 09:27 -0600
Re: Hash table implementation. Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-08-12 18:37 +0000
Re: Hash table implementation. Jens Gustedt <Jens.Gustedt@loria.fr> - 2011-08-13 00:08 +0200
Re: Hash table implementation. Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-08-12 15:26 -0700
Re: Hash table implementation. Jens Gustedt <Jens.Gustedt@loria.fr> - 2011-08-13 15:11 +0200
Re: Hash table implementation. Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-08-13 11:38 -0700
Re: Hash table implementation. Jens Gustedt <Jens.Gustedt@loria.fr> - 2011-08-13 21:03 +0200
Re: Hash table implementation. "Herbert Rosenau" <os2guy@pc-rosenau.de> - 2011-08-19 08:17 +0000
Re: Hash table implementation. Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2011-08-19 13:29 +0200
Re: Hash table implementation. Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-08-19 14:35 +0300
Re: Hash table implementation. Michael Angelo Ravera <maravera@prodigy.net> - 2011-08-12 02:54 -0700
Re: Hash table implementation. Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-08-13 23:11 +0100
Re: Hash table implementation. Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-08-14 00:56 +0100
Re: Hash table implementation. lolzy@live.nl - 2011-08-14 00:11 -0700
Re: Hash table implementation. Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-08-14 11:57 +0100
csiph-web