From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2008 10:01:18 +0000 From: "Douglas A. Gwyn" Message-ID: <47BDE47A.C460C228@null.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: <9f3897940802151547u69c34d7dr1e1b26d36501f71e@mail.gmail.com>, <11c3f7123799c7bb2fb4637fc62a10f8@coraid.com> Subject: Re: [9fans] Non-stack-based calling conventions Topicbox-Message-UUID: 5eac1022-ead3-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 Brantley Coile wrote: > Early Control Data machines, like many machines > of the era, used the return address to find the parameters. > This meant that you put he parameters in the instruction > stream right after the call to the subroutine. > ... Yes, a lot of minicomputers did that in those days. Even on the PDP-11, which had nice support for stack operations, some system- call conventions involved embedding parameters in-line. Unix did that too, although at some point an "indirect" call was added to fetch the parameter block from a pointed-to location. If you have and CDC Cyber 18 (or 1700) system software, I am desperate to obtain a copy for use with my 1700 emulation.