Variable argument lists.

[Ray Dunn]

In article <7893 at brl-smoke.ARPA> gwyn at brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB) <gwyn>) writes:
>In article <1740 at rpp386.UUCP> jfh at rpp386.UUCP (The Beach Bum) writes:
>>the addition of an extra instruction to stack the number of arguments
>>can hardly be considered significantly slowing down a function call.
>
>WRONG.  Multiply the extra cost per function call by the number of
>function calls per day, to see how much computer time you would be
>wasting each day.
>
>Function call overhead is so significant that....

I'm not too happy pointing this out, but really!!

Am I totally up the wall, or is this the same person who berated me recently
for suggesting that "cdecl" in Microsoft C on the PC was A Good Thing
because amongst other things, it conveniently enabled the saving of an
instruction per function call?

>From the argument above, even if that was the *only* reason for "cdecl",
then it would be A Good Thing (and it *is*)!

-- 
Ray Dunn.                      |   UUCP: ..!{philabs, mnetor}!micomvax!ray
Philips Electronics Ltd.       |   TEL : (514) 744-8200   Ext: 2347
600 Dr Frederik Philips Blvd   |   FAX : (514) 744-6455
St Laurent. Quebec.  H4M 2S9   |   TLX : 05-824090