Is a load-store architecture machine more suitable to run C++ code?

Discussion in 'C++' started by dick, Mar 2, 2007.

  1. dick

    dick Guest

    Is a load-store architecture machine more suitable to run C++ code?
     
    dick, Mar 2, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Re: Is a load-store architecture machine more suitable to run C++code?

    * dick:
    > Is a load-store architecture machine more suitable to run C++ code?


    What's the C++ question?

    And more generally, what's the question?

    --
    A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
    Q: Why is it such a bad thing?
    A: Top-posting.
    Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?
     
    Alf P. Steinbach, Mar 2, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. On Mar 2, 6:30 am, "dick" <> wrote:
    > Is a load-store architecture machine more suitable to run C++ code?


    That will probably depend on which C++ code we are talking about. I'm
    quite confident that you can write code in C++ that will suite to just
    about any architecture, but the reverse should also be true, that you
    can write code unsuitable for any architecture.

    --
    Erik Wikström
     
    =?iso-8859-1?q?Erik_Wikstr=F6m?=, Mar 2, 2007
    #3
  4. dick

    Ron Natalie Guest

    Re: Is a load-store architecture machine more suitable to run C++code?

    dick wrote:
    > Is a load-store architecture machine more suitable to run C++ code?
    >

    I don't know why you would say that. And LS architectures vary
    widely from old lockstep processors to pipelined RISC things.
    The compiler generally can (and must) make use of a variety
    of things.

    C's roots are in both architectures.
     
    Ron Natalie, Mar 5, 2007
    #4
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Muhammad Khan
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    1,248
    Mike Treseler
    Jul 10, 2003
  2. Replies:
    3
    Views:
    524
    Malcolm
    Sep 29, 2005
  3. Rob Cowie
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    327
    John J. Lee
    May 29, 2005
  4. rashmi
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    480
    Grumble
    Jul 5, 2005
  5. Replies:
    3
    Views:
    437
    Malcolm
    Sep 29, 2005
Loading...

Share This Page