Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.c |
| Subject | Re: no stack |
| Date | 2015-03-22 13:56 +0100 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <meme4p$cfq$1@dont-email.me> (permalink) |
| References | <347790b0-5f11-4008-b254-5b5d5229a387@googlegroups.com> |
On 22/03/15 10:09, fir wrote: > 'no stack' is a bit hype/slogan (could be good to easier remembering the subject postulate) > > I mean here that i wonder if c compiler > would just not use stack for args and locals > and just used static data everywhere by default (axcept the rere thing where you > explicitely will denote some data as auto > and such variable would be created/dropped on stack) - if it will not make > 1) significently simpler > 2) faster > 3) smaller > 4) more potent for some usable techniques > > executables > > (stack would be used for call ret adresses > and for rare data explicitely denoted as auto (though i wonder if such auto data shouldnt be placed on speparate stack, not the same as ret/call one) > > I seem to being convinced that this static no stack version should be considered as a default implementation in c programs) > (nearly sure that this would be better > options, though test should be done to prove this, and such test are burdensome a bit) > You are almost completely wrong on almost all counts - which is why almost all implementations of C use a stack. Feel free to post any evidence for your claims - with enough evidence and justification, you might change people's minds. There is two areas of computing where stackless operation is desirable, and outweighs the very significant advantages of the simple, fast and efficient stack that is used in most languages. One is for very limited embedded processors, for which access to stack data may be inefficient. A good example is the 8051 - it is a hideous design, and was poor and old-fashioned on the day it was released. Yet for various reasons, it has been a staple choice of core in microcontrollers and SoC's for over three decades (fortunately it is now rare in new devices). Accessing data on the stack is slow and awkward, requiring multiple instructions - therefore compilers work hard to replace stack accesses by static data accesses. This is not "simpler" for the compiler - the toolchains are very complex in order to achieve this, and use "whole program" analysis and optimisation to ensure that it is safe to make such changes, and to know when functions may be recursive or re-entrant. The techniques do not scale well to bigger systems, but are successful for devices with a few tens of K of program and typically less than 1 K of data. The second place that you find stackless systems is in massively parallel setups, especially with large numbers of lightweight threads on a single system. Stackless Python, for example, is a Python virtual machine that does not require a stack for each lightweight thread. This makes it suitable for modelling flocks of birds on a PC - each "bird" has its own independent thread, but without the system overhead of a stack for each of them. Such systems typically require modified or limited versions of the "normal" programming language (for example, recursion is not allowed).
Back to comp.lang.c | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
no stack fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-03-22 02:09 -0700
Re: no stack wssimms@gmail.com - 2015-03-22 02:52 -0700
Re: no stack fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-03-22 03:04 -0700
Re: no stack Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-03-22 13:15 +0000
Re: no stack fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-03-22 07:37 -0700
Re: no stack Lőrinczy Zsigmond <nospam@for.me> - 2015-03-22 11:10 +0100
Re: no stack fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-03-22 03:30 -0700
Re: no stack jacob navia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2015-03-22 11:15 +0100
Re: no stack jacob navia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2015-03-22 11:23 +0100
Re: no stack jacob navia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2015-03-22 11:24 +0100
Re: no stack jacob navia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2015-03-22 11:41 +0100
Re: no stack Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-03-22 12:18 -0700
Re: no stack Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2015-03-22 20:25 +0100
Re: no stack Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-03-23 12:17 -0500
Re: no stack James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-03-23 13:22 -0400
Re: no stack Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-03-22 11:13 +0000
Re: no stack fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-03-22 04:29 -0700
Re: no stack fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-03-22 04:33 -0700
Re: no stack fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-03-22 04:39 -0700
Re: no stack fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-03-22 04:46 -0700
Re: no stack Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-03-22 12:16 +0000
Re: no stack fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-03-22 05:25 -0700
Re: no stack Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-03-22 12:59 +0000
Re: no stack fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-03-22 07:15 -0700
Re: no stack David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-03-22 15:39 +0100
Re: no stack Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-03-22 19:47 +0000
Re: no stack fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-03-23 02:18 -0700
Re: no stack Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-03-23 11:21 +0000
Re: no stack Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-03-23 11:35 +0000
Re: no stack fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-03-23 07:07 -0700
Re: no stack fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-03-23 07:28 -0700
Re: no stack Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-03-23 14:56 +0000
Re: no stack fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-03-23 08:13 -0700
Re: no stack Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-03-22 13:01 -0700
Re: no stack David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-03-23 13:14 +0100
Re: no stack fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-03-22 05:30 -0700
Re: no stack David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-03-22 14:15 +0100
Re: no stack fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-03-22 04:49 -0700
Re: no stack Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2015-03-22 12:37 +0100
Re: no stack fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-03-22 05:06 -0700
Re: no stack Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2015-03-22 13:23 +0100
Re: no stack fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-03-22 05:48 -0700
Re: no stack fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-03-22 08:51 -0700
Re: no stack fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-03-23 07:39 -0700
Re: no stack fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-03-23 07:54 -0700
Re: no stack David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-03-22 14:45 +0100
Re: no stack Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-03-22 14:20 +0000
Re: no stack David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-03-22 15:43 +0100
Re: no stack Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-03-22 13:09 -0700
Re: no stack Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-03-22 20:38 +0000
Re: no stack Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-03-22 13:54 -0700
Re: no stack fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-03-23 02:08 -0700
Re: no stack Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-03-23 12:07 +0000
Re: no stack fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-03-23 07:13 -0700
Re: no stack Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2015-03-22 20:59 +0000
Re: no stack fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-03-22 07:35 -0700
Re: no stack David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-03-22 16:27 +0100
Re: no stack fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-03-22 05:10 -0700
Re: no stack David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-03-22 13:56 +0100
Re: no stack John Bode <jfbode1029@gmail.com> - 2015-03-24 09:01 -0700
Re: no stack Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-03-24 12:30 -0700
Re: no stack David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-03-25 09:16 +0100
Re: no stack Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-03-25 09:00 -0700
Re: no stack David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-03-25 17:33 +0100
Re: no stack James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-03-25 13:35 -0400
Re: no stack Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-03-25 16:22 -0700
Re: no stack David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-03-26 08:54 +0100
Re: no stack Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-03-26 08:48 -0700
Re: no stack David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-03-26 23:00 +0100
Re: no stack Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-03-28 09:15 -0700
Re: no stack David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-03-28 18:17 +0100
Re: no stack Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-03-28 12:36 -0700
Re: no stack Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2015-03-28 17:33 -0400
Re: no stack Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-03-30 08:04 -0700
Re: no stack David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-04-07 00:39 +0200
Re: no stack fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-03-26 01:21 -0700
Re: no stack Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-03-25 10:57 -0700
Re: no stack David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-03-25 21:55 +0100
csiph-web