English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively

[Lars Enderin]

2011-05-21 10:32, Jonathan de Boyne Pollard skrev:
>> The supposed inefficiency of recursive implementations is based
>> largely on the properties of hardware that is now obsolete. With
>> modern processors there's no great efficiency hit. In some of the
>> smaller microcontrollers, it's true, you do have to worry about stack
>> overflow; but the ARM processors, for example, provide plenty of stack
>> space.
>>
>> In the microcontroller world, the big performance hits come from the
>> fact that the only available compilers are for C and sometimes C++.
>> (And nobody uses assembly language except for the very little jobs.)
>> The nature of the C language prevents compilers from doing
>> optimisations that are standard in compilers for high-level languages.
>> Most C compilers will, for example, always pass parameters on the
>> stack, despite the generous supply of registers available in newer
>> hardware.
>>
> However, some C compilers will *also* have one or more "go faster"
> calling conventions that pass parameters in registers, which can be
> employed.  Over in the PC world, such "go faster" calling conventions
> are even the default calling convention if no calling convention is
> explicitly specified, for some C and C++ compilers.
> 
>    
> http://homepage.ntlworld.com./jonathan.deboynepollard/FGA/function-calling-conventions.html#Compiler
> 
>    
> http://homepage.ntlworld.com./jonathan.deboynepollard/FGA/function-calling-conventions.html#Optlink
> 
>    
> http://homepage.ntlworld.com./jonathan.deboynepollard/FGA/function-calling-conventions.html#Watcall
> 

Please include attributions, in this case for Peter Moylan and rusi!