Xref: utzoo comp.unix.questions:29749 comp.lang.c:37519
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!spool.mu.edu!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!hsdndev!cmcl2!adm!smoke!gwyn
From: gwyn@smoke.brl.mil (Doug Gwyn)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.questions,comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Unix Stack Frame Questions
Keywords: UNIX Stack
Message-ID: <15560@smoke.brl.mil>
Date: 25 Mar 91 07:52:12 GMT
Article-I.D.: smoke.15560
References: <125@epic.epic.com>
Followup-To: comp.unix.questions
Organization: U.S. Army Ballistic Research Laboratory, APG, MD.
Lines: 13

In article <125@epic.epic.com> tan@epic.epic.com (Andy Tan) writes:
>1. Is it right to assume that the address of the last automatic
>   variable is the bottom of stack frame ?

Certainly not.  It is not even correct to assume that there IS a stack
as such; some implementations thread activation records together as
linked segments.

>4. Any better solutions to save and restore stack frame for SunOS 4.x ?

Yes -- figure out what it is that your program REALLY needs to be doing
(saving stack frames cannot possibly be an application requirement),
then devise an alternate solution that uses portable techniques.