Unix Stack Frame Questions

John F Haugh II jfh at rpp386.cactus.org
Sun Apr 7 07:03:22 AEST 1991


In article <3035 at cirrusl.UUCP> dhesi%cirrusl at oliveb.ATC.olivetti.com (Rahul Dhesi) writes:
>A "stack frame" is the ONLY way of dealing with calls and returns *if
>they may be recursive*.
>
>*Where* the stack frame lies is another question.  Part of it may be in
>registers.  It's still a stack frame.

If it's in the registers it certainly isn't on the stack and certainly
isn't a "stack frame".  Every reference to "stack frame" I've seen
refers to the layout of parameters and call/return linkage on the
stack.  I'm certain this is a semantic disagreement since using CPU
registers to hold parameters is certainly a better mechanism than
putting everyting on the stack, and that is but one example of something
better than a "stack frame".
-- 
John F. Haugh II        | Distribution to  | UUCP: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh
Ma Bell: (512) 832-8832 | GEnie PROHIBITED :-) |  Domain: jfh at rpp386.cactus.org
"If liberals interpreted the 2nd Amendment the same way they interpret the
 rest of the Constitution, gun ownership would be mandatory."



More information about the Comp.unix.internals mailing list