Path: csiph.com!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!feeder.usenetexpress.com!feeder-in1.iad1.usenetexpress.com!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news.misty.com!news.iecc.com!.POSTED.news.iecc.com!nerds-end From: Shoefoot Newsgroups: comp.compilers Subject: Re: Add nested-function support in a language the based on a stack-machine Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2018 12:27:16 -0800 (PST) Organization: Compilers Central Lines: 9 Sender: news@iecc.com Approved: comp.compilers@iecc.com Message-ID: <18-02-026@comp.compilers> References: <18-02-009@comp.compilers> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Injection-Info: gal.iecc.com; posting-host="news.iecc.com:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:676f:7373:6970"; logging-data="86680"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@iecc.com" Keywords: code Posted-Date: 14 Feb 2018 15:32:04 EST X-submission-address: compilers@iecc.com X-moderator-address: compilers-request@iecc.com X-FAQ-and-archives: http://compilers.iecc.com Xref: csiph.com comp.compilers:1959 On Monday, February 12, 2018 at 3:51:19 PM UTC-5, dror....@gmail.com wrote: > one, using an activation-link (also called static-link), and display. I'm a big fan of Display stacks. They are easy to implement and fast at runtime. However they do break down with setjmp/longjmp. The Display stack becomes part of the state and must be pushed with the setjmp. There is also some considerations for the debugger. The debugger has to walk the stack rather than use the Display.