Re: Stack based-Register Based

peter_flass@yahoo.com
26 Jan 2001 16:55:38 -0500

          From comp.compilers
Related articles
Stack based-Register Based vinoth@india.ti.com (Vinoth Kumar) (2001-01-19)
Re: Stack based-Register Based anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (2001-01-20)
Re: Stack based-Register Based vbdis@aol.com (2001-01-20)
Re: Stack based-Register Based roedy@mindprod.com (Roedy Green) (2001-01-26)
Re: Stack based-Register Based peter_flass@yahoo.com (2001-01-26)
Re: Stack based-Register Based andrewb@votehere.net (Andrew Berg) (2001-01-28)
Re: Stack based-Register Based rog@vitanuova.com (2001-02-01)
Re: Stack based-Register Based ucapjab@ucl.ac.uk (Jonathan Barker) (2001-02-01)
Re: Stack based-Register Based rpw3@rigden.engr.sgi.com (2001-02-04)
Re: Stack based-Register Based Martin.Ward@durham.ac.uk (2001-02-04)
Re: Stack based-Register Based anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (2001-02-04)
[6 later articles]
| List of all articles for this month |
From: peter_flass@yahoo.com
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: 26 Jan 2001 16:55:38 -0500
Organization: Deja.com
References: 01-01-124 01-01-137
Keywords: architecture, comment
Posted-Date: 26 Jan 2001 16:55:37 EST

In article 01-01-137,
    vbdis@aol.com (VBDis) wrote:
> Vinoth Kumar <vinoth@india.ti.com> schreibt:
  ...
> What is, in your opinion, the difference between values in registers
> and values in a stack?
>
> [The following is my opinion, but it may be outdated a bit ;-]
> ...
> There exist(ed) processors, which implement their registers in a
> stack, and moved the base pointer with every scope change. Many
> registers, but all in memory!


Also outdated, but the stack architectures I'm familiar with
implemented the stack with the top two operands in registers. The
registers were automatically pushed/popped as needed. [B-5500,
etc. for those interested.]
[The HP3000 did that, too. -John]

Post a followup to this message

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