home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sydney.DIALix.oz.au!not-for-mail
- From: accolyte@sydney.DIALix.oz.au (Troy Till)
- Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.programmer
- Subject: Re: PPC compilers
- Date: 12 Jan 1996 01:02:26 +1100
- Organization: DIALix Services, Sydney, Australia.
- Sender: accolyte@sydney.DIALix.oz.au
- Message-ID: <4d359i$ii7$1@sydney.DIALix.oz.au>
- References: <john.hendrikx.40ka@grafix.xs4all.nl> <MQAQx*XOe@yaps.rhein.de> <OWhVx*42f@yaps.rhein.de> <4cuhng$dmn@maureen.teleport.com> <jasonb.821247870@cs.uwa.edu.au>
- NNTP-Posting-Host: accolyte@sydney.dialix.oz.au
-
- Jason S Birch (jasonb@cs.uwa.edu.au) wrote:
- : sschaem@teleport.com (Stephan Schaem) writes:
- : >Arno Eigenwillig (arno@yaps.rhein.de) wrote:
- : >: Why don't you read what he wrote? A reasonable example for that would
- : >: be operations on clock_t.
- :
- : > The claim was general: you can forget your variable type when you use
- : > them in C... I'm just saying thats its not wise.
- :
- : What we've been (repeatedly) trying to say, is that's *not* what he
- : said. He said you can forget about the *implementation* of your
- : variable type on a particular machine (if the data is encapsulated
- : correctly). The whole point being that in assembler, you cannot forget
- : the implementation, because pratically every time you do *use* a
- : "variable" of that type, you have to specify how big it is.
-
- Bear with me here, 'cause I don't know the second thing about C..
-
- can you do something to the equivalent of:
-
- addx.l d0,d1
- move.w d1,d2
-
- Which is treating d1 as a long word, then a word. How would you implement
- this in C?
-
- Troy.
-
-