Compiler Specific Operators

[peters at cubsvax.UUCP]

>>In article <mit-eddi.2526> barmar at mit-eddie.UUCP (Barry Margolin) writes:
>>>...why not write the operations as function calls, and teach compilers
>>>to open-code calls to certain functions.

>In article <503 at cubsvax.UUCP> peters at cubsvax.UUCP (Peter S. Shenkin) replies:
>>				... What I'd like to know is whether the draft
>>standard permits this, and what the net guru's think about it.

In article <umcp-cs.2424> chris at maryland.UUCP (Chris Torek) writes:
>Apparently the committee (or a large faction thereof) is quite
>concerned about ensuring that there is some easy way to ensure a
>`real function call'.

Yes, apparently so, but WHY?  What the hell difference does it make, from
the user's point of view?  That is, why should he ever be anything other
than happy, if some alternative invoked by the compiler produces faster-
running code?

Peter S. Shenkin	 Columbia Univ. Biology Dept., NY, NY  10027
{philabs,rna}!cubsvax!peters		cubsvax!peters at columbia.ARPA