Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84 exptools; site ihlpl.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!ihnp4!ihlpl!res From: res@ihlpl.UUCP (Rich Strebendt @ AT&T Information Systems - Indian Hill West; formerly) Newsgroups: net.arch Subject: Re: What I miss in micro-processors (fairly long) Message-ID: <326@ihlpl.UUCP> Date: Wed, 4-Sep-85 22:25:40 EDT Article-I.D.: ihlpl.326 Posted: Wed Sep 4 22:25:40 1985 Date-Received: Fri, 6-Sep-85 05:37:28 EDT References: <796@kuling.UUCP> Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories Lines: 29 > > I've been working in assembly language on micro-processors quite > a lot recently and there are a couple of features I've been missing > rather badly ... I would be very glad for views > from other users on what kind of thing they would like to see included > as well as some response from the people who design these things > > 1. Stack overflow detection. > > This is the one that really bugs me. I don't know of any > micro-processor that does this. Why is that? In my mind this is > something that is badly needed, and coding the check inline would be too > much of a performance penalty. This is also fundamentally different > from things like array bounds checking which, in principle, need only > be done while debugging the program and should never appear in a > "correct" program. This is not true of stack overflow which can happen > in a perfectly good program. > I am aware that many systems let their mmu handle the problem, but > that doesn't seem like a very good solution to me (it doesn't check for > stack overflow, only memory references "just above" the stack limit, > right?) and it doesn't help at all if the system doesn't have an mmu > (yes, all systems *should* have one, but...). This feature is built into AT&T's WE(TM)-32100 Microprocessor. I know, because I just got a stack overflow exception on the other terminal connected to a board I am developing firmware for!! Rich Strebendt ...!ihnp4!iwsl6!res