On Mon, 5 Jun 2006, Brendan O'Dea wrote: > Re: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27884 > > Hi Richard, > > Could you please expand on your comment: > > "It's certainly a questionable use of 'register'. What is the > expected effect of this parameter declaration from perls point of > view?" > > My copy of an [admittedly old C9X standard] states both that: > > 6.7.1 Storage-class specifiers > 4: A declaration of an identifier for an object with storage-class > specifier register suggests that access to the object be as fast > as possible. [...] > > and: > > 6.7.5.3 Function declarators (including prototypes) > 2: The only storage-class specifier that shall occur in a parameter > declaration is register. > > So given that "register" parameters to a function are both legal, and > potentially make accesses fast, could you please expand on wht that is a > "questionable use of 'register'"?
Note that I specifically did not say the code is invalid, but only questionable because of desired semantics. The "storage-class" for function parameters is specified by the ABI in effect, so any additional storage-class specifier (being it only one valid one, register) has no effect there anyway. So, a good cleanup for perl would be to drop usage of the 'register' storage-class specifier. That it is rejected by gcc in this case is still a gcc bug. Richard. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
