Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site utah-cs.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!ihnp4!pesnta!hplabs!utah-cs!brownc
From: brownc@utah-cs.UUCP (Eric C. Brown)
Newsgroups: net.arch
Subject: Re: RISC
Message-ID: <3371@utah-cs.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 7-Jun-85 14:29:05 EDT
Article-I.D.: utah-cs.3371
Posted: Fri Jun  7 14:29:05 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 9-Jun-85 01:23:46 EDT
References: <639@vax2.fluke.UUCP> <2743@nsc.UUCP> <576@terak.UUCP> <611@lll-crg.ARPA> <591@terak.UUCP> <14882@watmath.UUCP>
Reply-To: brownc@utah-cs.UUCP (Eric C. Brown)
Organization: Univ of Utah CS Dept
Lines: 15
Summary: 

In article <14882@watmath.UUCP> atbowler@watmath.UUCP (Alan T. Bowler [SDG]) 
writes:
>   I am also not a big fan of very complex instructions either.  My
>experience shows that supplied "CALL" instructions that do any
>more than store a return address in a register make subroutine call
>design difficult, and usually slower.

I would agree with you to a point:  the return address should be saved on
a stack.  Jamming it into a register only means you blow an instruction
inside the subroutine saving the old pc anyway.  (Recursion? recursion?
all I want to do is call another routine inside the first...)

Eric C. Brown
..!{decvax, ihnp4, seismo}!utah-cs!brownc
brownc@utah-cs