Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!yale!cmcl2!kramden.acf.nyu.edu!brnstnd From: brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein) Newsgroups: comp.lang.c Subject: Re: alloca() portability Message-ID: <5392:Nov1406:40:1290@kramden.acf.nyu.edu> Date: 14 Nov 90 06:40:12 GMT References: <27608@mimsy.umd.edu> Organization: IR Lines: 18 In article s64421@zeus.usq.EDU.AU (house ron) writes: > given that all sane computers nowadays have a good > efficient stack. Oh? I regularly use a supermini (not a slow little Sun---this thing can run up to twice as fast as a Convex on non-vector codes) that doesn't have *any* stack. *None*. It also takes two instructions to load from memory. It also has separate integer and floating-point instruction streams, each dealing with thirty-two registers. As you can imagine, the compiler does a lot of work. As does the instruction scheduler. Do you have some religious objection to machines with simulated stacks, or do you have some rational reason that they're not ``sane''? ---Dan