Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!rochester!pt.cs.cmu.edu!sei.cmu.edu!firth From: firth@sei.cmu.edu (Robert Firth) Newsgroups: comp.lang.c Subject: Re: structure function returns -- how? Message-ID: <506@aw.sei.cmu.edu.sei.cmu.edu> Date: Mon, 5-Jan-87 10:16:35 EST Article-I.D.: aw.506 Posted: Mon Jan 5 10:16:35 1987 Date-Received: Mon, 5-Jan-87 21:44:26 EST References: <131@hcx1.UUCP> <773@maynard.BSW.COM> <7403@utzoo.UUCP> <490@aw.sei.cmu.edu.sei.cmu.edu> <326@bms-at.UUCP> <5075@ism780c.UUCP> Sender: netnews@sei.cmu.edu Reply-To: firth@bd.sei.cmu.edu.UUCP (PUT YOUR NAME HERE) Organization: Carnegie-Mellon University, SEI, Pgh, Pa Lines: 13 In article <5075@ism780c.UUCP> tim@ism780c.UUCP (Tim Smith) writes: > >If one makes the caller, rather than the callee, do the unlink >after a call, then one can return stuff on the stack with no problem >with recursion or re-entrance. >-- >Tim Smith USENET: sdcrdcf!ism780c!tim Compuserve: 72257,3706 > Delphi or GEnie: mnementh Absolutely right, Tim! Which is one (of many) reasons why the compiler writer should be free to choose how to call, link, return, unlink &c. Which is one (of many) reasons why hardware instructions such as VAX CALLS, that preempt your choice, are undesirable.