Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.
| 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) |
| 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]
Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.