Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.compilers > #638
| From | "robin" <robin51@dodo.com.au> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.compilers |
| Subject | Re: Archaic hardware (was Fortran calls) |
| Date | 2012-05-09 10:46 +1000 |
| Organization | Compilers Central |
| Message-ID | <12-05-009@comp.compilers> (permalink) |
| References | (4 earlier) <12-04-084@comp.compilers> <12-04-085@comp.compilers> <12-05-004@comp.compilers> <12-05-005@comp.compilers> <12-05-006@comp.compilers> |
From: "glen herrmannsfeldt" <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> Sent: Sunday, 6 May 2012 3:13 PM > I remembered the PDP-8 using the "store the return address in the > first word" method, but, yes, there was an earlier PDP-10 compiler. > The one I used was, I believe, called Fortran-10 and the older one > Fortran-40. The CDC machines 7600, Cyber 70 series, etc used that method to store the return address. Surprising that those machines should take a step backwards, in view of around a decade of Algol (with recursion). It meant that each subroutine/function needed to implement its own stack should it be called recursively. Alan Turing designed the push-down pop-up stack for subroutines back in 1945, for his computer (later christened Automatic Computing Engine). That feature did not see hardware at that time. However, the Pilot ACE (1951) included a push-down stack (or, if you like) a queue. That push-down stack was continued into the DEUCE line (1955). The stack as a means of calling and returning from subroutines/ functions was implemented in the KDF9 (1961, delivered 1963). The S/360 and subsequent issue stored the return address in a register. That made it somewhat easier to have a universal stack manipulated by software.
Back to comp.compilers | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar
Decades of compiler technology and what do we get? Robert AH Prins <robert@prino.org> - 2012-04-22 18:57 +0000
Re: Decades of compiler technology and what do we get? Robert AH Prins <robert@prino.org> - 2012-04-22 22:14 +0000
Re: PL/I nostalgia, was Decades of compiler technology and what do we get? glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2012-04-23 00:03 +0000
Re: PL/I nostalgia "robin" <robin51@dodo.com.au> - 2012-04-25 09:07 +1000
Re: PL/I nostalgia glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2012-04-24 23:52 +0000
Re: PL/I nostalgia "robin" <robin51@dodo.com.au> - 2012-04-28 21:30 +1000
Re: PL/I nostalgia glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2012-04-28 16:11 +0000
Re: PL/I nostalgia Robert A Duff <bobduff@shell01.TheWorld.com> - 2012-04-29 10:16 -0400
Re: PL/I code "robin" <robin51@dodo.com.au> - 2012-05-05 00:45 +1000
Re: PL/I code glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2012-05-05 05:20 +0000
Re: Fortran calls, was PL/I code glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2012-05-06 05:13 +0000
Re: Archaic hardware (was Fortran calls) "robin" <robin51@dodo.com.au> - 2012-05-09 10:46 +1000
Re: PL/I nostalgia "robin" <robin51@dodo.com.au> - 2012-09-19 11:04 +1000
Re: PL/I nostalgia glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2012-09-19 03:56 +0000
Re: PL/I nostalgia "robin" <robin51@dodo.com.au> - 2012-09-21 13:53 +1000
Re: PL/I nostalgia glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2012-09-21 07:00 +0000
Re: PL/I nostalgia "robin" <robin51@dodo.com.au> - 2012-09-30 10:45 +1000
csiph-web