Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!think.com!paperboy!hsdndev!cmcl2!adm!smoke!gwyn From: gwyn@smoke.brl.mil (Doug Gwyn) Newsgroups: comp.lang.c Subject: Re: Unix Stack Frame Questions Message-ID: <15728@smoke.brl.mil> Date: 6 Apr 91 00:06:47 GMT References: <3465@unisoft.UUCP> <1991Apr4.230716.21177@cbnewsm.att.com> Organization: U.S. Army Ballistic Research Laboratory, APG, MD. Lines: 9 In article <1991Apr4.230716.21177@cbnewsm.att.com> lfd@cbnewsm.att.com (Lee Derbenwick) writes: >All the C language guarantees you is behavior _as if_ there were a stack. It's probably better to simply say that autos and parameters are distinct for each active invocation of a function. I don't like the "stack" model since it can mislead the unwary. If one has to have a model, try the linked activation record model a la Burroughs B5700 etc. (Interestingly, that was a genuine "stack architecture", but the stack was not used for the activation records.) However, a model should not be necessary.