Groups | Search | Server Info | Login | Register

Groups > comp.arch > #6442

Re: Architecting a return address stack

Show all headers | View raw

On Wednesday, March 28, 2012 10:57:42 AM UTC-5, MitchAlsup wrote:
> Do yourself (and everyone else) a favor and don't.
> 
> That is, let the stack, which is an inherently software feature, be defined in a way that best fits the needs of the software, by those who have to maintain the software.

So you prefer the Alpha approach of the LINK register being a normal register,
as opposed to the more typical special register that is mostly hidden?

You can throw some special hardware at LINK, but I think most just use a register.
Is the idea of throwing extra hardware at LINK just futile duplication?

Back to comp.arch | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

Architecting a return address stack "Paul A. Clayton" <paaronclayton@gmail.com> - 2012-03-27 17:35 -0700
  Re: Architecting a return address stack MitchAlsup <MitchAlsup@aol.com> - 2012-03-28 08:57 -0700
    Re: Architecting a return address stack ggtgp@yahoo.com - 2012-04-04 12:03 -0700
      Re: Architecting a return address stack MitchAlsup <MitchAlsup@aol.com> - 2012-04-05 09:08 -0700
  Re: Architecting a return address stack torbenm@diku.dk (Torben Ægidius Mogensen) - 2012-04-10 12:23 +0200
    Re: Architecting a return address stack Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201204.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> - 2012-04-10 22:22 +0200
      Re: Architecting a return address stack torbenm@diku.dk (Torben Ægidius Mogensen) - 2012-04-12 09:52 +0200
  Re: Architecting a return address stack jacko <jackokring@gmail.com> - 2012-04-14 08:32 -0700

csiph-web