Newsgroups: comp.arch
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!uupsi!ficc!peter
From: peter@ficc.ferranti.com (peter da silva)
Subject: Re: Compilers and efficiency
Message-ID: <5VWAGK5@xds13.ferranti.com>
Organization: Ferranti International Controls Corporation
References: <7184@auspex.auspex.com> <12740@pt.cs.cmu.edu>
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 91 14:11:22 GMT

In article <12740@pt.cs.cmu.edu>, lindsay@gandalf.cs.cmu.edu (Donald Lindsay) writes:
> The reason it was easy was because the machine code for a
> procedure prologue, contained (get this) a *call* to the runtime
> package...

The K&R C compiler for the PDP-11 did this, too. And it did returns with
a "jmp cret".

You want a weird calling convention, try the 1802. A subroutine call is made
by changing which register is acting as the PC: all subroutines were
coroutines. To get stack calling you set up a pair of call-return subroutines,
burned a couple registers as their start address, and called them with SEP 4
and SEP 5. The only machine I know for which Forth (particularly token
indirect threaded code) was faster than regular subroutine calls using the
Standard Call/Return technique.

(I know, you're all tired of me flaming about the 1802. But it was a really
 CUTE micro. Sort of like a boutique car.)
-- 
Peter da Silva.  `-_-'  peter@ferranti.com
+1 713 274 5180.  'U`  "Have you hugged your wolf today?"