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?

[Alf P. Steinbach]

* 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?

[=?iso-8859-1?q?Erik_Wikstr=F6m?=]

On Mar 2, 6:30 am, "dick" <[e-mail]:

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

[Ron Natalie]

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.