Xref: utzoo comp.unix.questions:30139 comp.unix.internals:2498 comp.unix.programmer:1517 comp.lang.c:38018 Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!cs.utexas.edu!execu!sequoia!rpp386!jfh From: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F Haugh II) Newsgroups: comp.unix.questions,comp.unix.internals,comp.unix.programmer,comp.lang.c Subject: Re: Unix Stack Frame Questions Message-ID: <19163@rpp386.cactus.org> Date: 6 Apr 91 21:03:22 GMT References: <125@epic.epic.com> <3465@unisoft.UUCP> <19157@rpp386.cactus.org> <3035@cirrusl.UUCP> Reply-To: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F Haugh II) Distribution: na Organization: Lone Star Cafe and BBS Service Lines: 19 X-Clever-Slogan: Recycle or Die. In article <3035@cirrusl.UUCP> dhesi%cirrusl@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@rpp386.cactus.org "If liberals interpreted the 2nd Amendment the same way they interpret the rest of the Constitution, gun ownership would be mandatory."