Unix Stack Frame Questions

[John F Haugh II]

In article <3035 at cirrusl.UUCP> dhesi%cirrusl at oliveb.ATC.olivetti.com (Rahul Dhesi) writes:
>A "stack frame" is the ONLY way of dealing with calls and returns *if
>they may be recursive*.
>
>*Where* the stack frame lies is another question.  Part of it may be in
>registers.  It's still a stack frame.

If it's in the registers it certainly isn't on the stack and certainly
isn't a "stack frame".  Every reference to "stack frame" I've seen
refers to the layout of parameters and call/return linkage on the
stack.  I'm certain this is a semantic disagreement since using CPU
registers to hold parameters is certainly a better mechanism than
putting everyting on the stack, and that is but one example of something
better than a "stack frame".
-- 
John F. Haugh II        | Distribution to  | UUCP: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh
Ma Bell: (512) 832-8832 | GEnie PROHIBITED :-) |  Domain: jfh at rpp386.cactus.org
"If liberals interpreted the 2nd Amendment the same way they interpret the
 rest of the Constitution, gun ownership would be mandatory."