From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <9405a701573fdd4782644ebadda77050@coraid.com>
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] Non-stack-based calling conventions
From: Brantley Coile <brantley@coraid.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 17:32:45 -0500
In-Reply-To: <47C48BE9.6090605@proweb.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 6383a4e8-ead3-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

> I'm quoting out of context as they were discussing the design of the
> Inferno VM but Phil Winterbottom & Rob Pike mention in
> http://www.vitanuova.com/inferno/papers/hotchips.html :
>
> "One might argue that a stack-based processor design would mitigate the
> difficulties, but our experience with the implementation of a stack
> machine in the AT&T Crisp microprocessor [5] leads us to believe that
> stack architectures are inherently slower than register-based machines.
> Their design lengthens the critical path by replacing simple registers
> with a complex stack cache mechanism."

I haven't been following the Non-stack-based calling thread
closely, but this comment is not about using the stack
in procedure calls.  They are talking about stack *machines*.

 push value
 push value
 add
 pop value

The Pacal P-machine, the Lillith microcode and the Java Byte machine
all come to mind.  Note about calling.  Intersting in any case.

Ken Thompson seemed to be absent at most Usenix conferences, but at
one I saw him line up at the mike after the talk on the BSD
packet filter.  He asked why they had used a stack machine.  The
poor fellow, who recognized who was asking the question looked
like a deer suddenly lit by the headlights of a Peterbuilt.

  `It's faster?'

  `No, it's not!'

End of questions.