Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ritcv.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxj!mhuxn!houxm!ihnp4!zehntel!hplabs!hao!seismo!rochester!ritcv!mjl
From: mjl@ritcv.UUCP (Mike Lutz)
Newsgroups: net.lang.c
Subject: Re: C stack frame sizes
Message-ID: <1397@ritcv.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 3-Dec-84 19:31:01 EST
Article-I.D.: ritcv.1397
Posted: Mon Dec  3 19:31:01 1984
Date-Received: Thu, 6-Dec-84 05:45:35 EST
References: <2400@pur-ee.UUCP>
Organization: Rochester Institute of Technology, Rochester, NY
Lines: 17

>From: ecn-ee!malcolm    Nov 30 21:27:00 1984

>I commonly put up to a megabyte into a single stack frame...I find
>it is much more elegant to put all of my temporary arrays on
>the stack...I wonder what this type of programming style would do to a
>Berkeley style RISC machine?

Probably wouldn't have much effect, as the philosophy of RISC is to
hold scalars in the register bank.  However, it does point up an
interesting problem -- does the Berkeley RISC require a parallel stack,
maintained by software protocols, to hold structures, arrays, and other
humongous local variables?

-- 
Mike Lutz	Rochester Institute of Technology, Rochester NY
UUCP:		{allegra,seismo}!rochester!ritcv!mjl
ARPA:		ritcv!mjl@Rochester.ARPA