From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: Date: Sat, 7 Nov 2009 00:50:28 +1100 Message-ID: <775b8d190911060550u49d33fcaj193f053657e55159@mail.gmail.com> From: Bruce Ellis To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [9fans] 8l(1) PUSH/POP Topicbox-Message-UUID: 973e99e4-ead5-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 No room in the compiler world for amateurs. "I think ...", 'But maybe ...", "I don't understand ...", etc. doesn't work for me. No problems here with curiosity here, but I'm sure your not sure. Same with crypto. That's why there are still > 10,000,000 insecure linux machines out there - because the users/corporations don't know/care about updates - and some monkey broke everything, and it took over a year for someone to find it. brucee On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 12:24 AM, erik quanstrom wro= te: >> what is the reason behind 8l(1) not allowing unbalanced PUSH/POP? > > i'm not sure of the original reason, but unbalanced > push/pop could conflict with the linker's automatic > stack management. =A0also, i'm not sure what the > general application would be unless you want to do > continuations. > > what's the application? > > if you're setting up a first process, i believe you can > still modify the stack pointer directly and do a stack- > relative move. > > - erik > >