Re: Use the stack less :)

Dietmar Schindler <dSpam@arcor.de>
21 Apr 2004 00:46:01 -0400

          From comp.compilers
Related articles
Use the stack less :) chriswalton87@hotmail.com (2004-04-15)
Re: Use the stack less :) dnovillo@redhat.com (Diego Novillo) (2004-04-15)
Re: Use the stack less :) wyrmwif@tsoft.com (SM Ryan) (2004-04-15)
Re: Use the stack less :) TommyAtNumba-Tu.Com--not@yahoo.com (Tommy Thorn) (2004-04-21)
Re: Use the stack less :) dSpam@arcor.de (Dietmar Schindler) (2004-04-21)
| List of all articles for this month |
From: Dietmar Schindler <dSpam@arcor.de>
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: 21 Apr 2004 00:46:01 -0400
Organization: MAN Roland
References: 04-04-052
Keywords: architecture, performance
Posted-Date: 21 Apr 2004 00:46:01 EDT

Ark? wrote:
> This is much better, and comes close to the efficiency of a separate,
> downward stack (held in EBP, possibly). However, the separate stack
> approach has the upper hand if the most recent local gets accessed
> alot - no offsets make the instruction both smaller and faster :)


I think this is not necessarily true in the presence of caching and
burst accesses.

Post a followup to this message

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