Xref: utzoo comp.unix.questions:30156 comp.unix.internals:2504 comp.unix.programmer:1523 comp.lang.c:38031 Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!uwvax!poona.cs.wisc.edu!hollings From: hollings@poona.cs.wisc.edu (Jeff Hollingsworth) Newsgroups: comp.unix.questions,comp.unix.internals,comp.unix.programmer,comp.lang.c Subject: Re: Unix Stack Frame Questions Message-ID: <1991Apr8.150041.22440@spool.cs.wisc.edu> Date: 8 Apr 91 15:00:41 GMT References: <125@epic.epic.com> <3465@unisoft.UUCP> <19157@rpp386.cactus.org> <3035@cirrusl.UUCP> Sender: news@spool.cs.wisc.edu (The News) Distribution: na Organization: U of Wisconsin CS Dept Lines: 21 In article <3035@cirrusl.UUCP>, dhesi%cirrusl@oliveb.ATC.olivetti.com (Rahul Dhesi) writes: |> In <19157@rpp386.cactus.org> jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F Haugh II) writes: |> |> >>But a stack frame seems to be the most efficient way of dealing with |> >>calls and returns. |> |> >No, there are =many= better ways. |> |> BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.... |> |> A "stack frame" is the ONLY way of dealing with calls and returns *if |> they may be recursive*. |> The better term here is activation record. An activation record (even with recursion) need not be on the stack. You can have activation records as linked lists in the heap. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jeff Hollingsworth Work: (608) 262-6617 Internet: hollings@cs.wisc.edu Home: (608) 256-4839 X.400: