Re: When/why did function calls get cheap?

Terrence Enger <tenger@idirect.com>
23 Mar 2003 22:25:07 -0500

          From comp.compilers

Related articles
[15 earlier articles]
Re: When/why did function calls get cheap? joachim_d@gmx.de (Joachim Durchholz) (2003-03-09)
Re: When/why did function calls get cheap? klimas@klimas-consulting.com (Andreas Klimas) (2003-03-09)
Re: When/why did function calls get cheap? bonzini@gnu.org (2003-03-14)
Re: When/why did function calls get cheap? jcrens@earthlink.net (Jack Crenshaw) (2003-03-14)
Re: When/why did function calls get cheap? david.thompson1@worldnet.att.net (David Thompson) (2003-03-22)
Re: When/why did function calls get cheap? alex_mcd@btopenworld.com (Alex McDonald) (2003-03-22)
Re: When/why did function calls get cheap? tenger@idirect.com (Terrence Enger) (2003-03-23)
Re: When/why did function calls get cheap? gah@ugcs.caltech.edu (Glen Herrmannsfeldt) (2003-03-24)
| List of all articles for this month |

From: Terrence Enger <tenger@idirect.com>
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: 23 Mar 2003 22:25:07 -0500
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
References: 03-02-073 03-03-087 03-03-119
Keywords: architecture, comment
Posted-Date: 23 Mar 2003 22:25:07 EST

David Thompson wrote:


> The 8080 stack could be anywhere in the 64k address space, but not all
> of it, unless you had no other data or code including boot. Which is
> obviously pretty unlikely. Only with 286 could you have a full 64KB
> for stack (assuming sufficient phyiscal memory, of course).


This takes me so far back it is almost like a dream. If memory
serves, the 8080 identified stack references on the bus, so that one
could have separate address spaces for stack and other memory, each
64K for a total of 128 K. I do not know of any computer which used
this feature.


Just my C$.02 worth.


Terry.
[We certainly used it on the PDP-11, separate instruction and data spaces.
  -John]


Post a followup to this message

Return to the comp.compilers page.
Search the comp.compilers archives again.