Path: csiph.com!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Paul Rubin Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth Subject: Re: Stack Sizes Date: Thu, 06 Oct 2016 23:57:55 -0700 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 11 Message-ID: <87fuo8wsr0.fsf@nightsong.com> References: <87k2dkwuqs.fsf@nightsong.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: mx02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="590ea01354cf4bcbcd857d7ebbd88128"; logging-data="23505"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/bK/rwp2hvnk+n9kxO+8DT" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:0s+Ou5xP/L8Ob2LyR6XG99eywgs= sha1:WREy+Xxj0K8N3oW5Y2/SS3UXddc= Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.forth:51659 rickman writes: > One of the issues in stack machines is dealing with more than a couple > or three stack items. I think a small offset into the stack will make > this work a lot better. The SPARC had a 24-register window, where each level of call got 8 local registers and could also see the local sets of the two higher calls. It seemed like a good idea at the time. I never dealt with it directly so I don't know what nonobvious issues it had, if any. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SPARC