Re: Framed Stack vs. Two Stack Architecture

"Vladimir Lushnikov" <vladimir.d.lushnikov@gmail.com>
28 Apr 2006 23:56:45 -0400

          From comp.compilers
Related articles
[3 earlier articles]
Re: Framed Stack vs. Two Stack Architecture DrDiettrich@compuserve.de (Hans-Peter Diettrich) (2006-04-23)
Re: Framed Stack vs. Two Stack Architecture gneuner2@comcast.net (George Neuner) (2006-04-23)
Re: Framed Stack vs. Two Stack Architecture anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (2006-04-23)
Re: Framed Stack vs. Two Stack Architecture dot@dotat.at (Tony Finch) (2006-04-23)
Re: Framed Stack vs. Two Stack Architecture brennie@dcsi.net.au (2006-04-23)
Re: Framed Stack vs. Two Stack Architecture dot@dotat.at (Tony Finch) (2006-04-25)
Re: Framed Stack vs. Two Stack Architecture vladimir.d.lushnikov@gmail.com (Vladimir Lushnikov) (2006-04-28)
Re: Framed Stack vs. Two Stack Architecture eliotm@pacbell.net (Eliot Miranda) (2006-05-01)
Re: Framed Stack vs. Two Stack Architecture eliotm@pacbell.net (Eliot Miranda) (2006-05-03)
| List of all articles for this month |
From: "Vladimir Lushnikov" <vladimir.d.lushnikov@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: 28 Apr 2006 23:56:45 -0400
Organization: http://groups.google.com
References: 06-04-12606-04-144 06-04-146
Keywords: VM, storage
Posted-Date: 28 Apr 2006 23:56:45 EDT

Wouldn't a register-based approach be better to continuations? You
just store the needed information in registers, and when you take a
continuation just take the names (or locations) of those registers
(probably with a minimal stack that tells how recursively deep you are
into a function, for example)?


I could be wrong.


Regards,
Vladimir Lushnikov


Post a followup to this message

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