Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site cheviot.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!genrad!wjh12!talcott!harvard!seismo!mcvax!ukc!cheviot!robert
From: robert@cheviot.UUCP (Robert Stroud)
Newsgroups: net.lang.c
Subject:  and the PERQ
Message-ID: <194@cheviot.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 18-Dec-84 09:19:37 EST
Article-I.D.: cheviot.194
Posted: Tue Dec 18 09:19:37 1984
Date-Received: Thu, 20-Dec-84 01:26:03 EST
Reply-To: robert@cheviot.UUCP (Robert Stroud)
Organization: U. of Newcastle upon Tyne, U.K.
Lines: 31



According to Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology

> ...     there are some misguided "high-level-language" machines --
> the PERQ is an example -- which ...
> ... *insist* on knowing how big the arglist is
> for a given function, have it figuring in the calling sequence to the
> point where you can't lie without disaster, and insist that the number
> be a constant for each function.

> There exist machines on which  is unimplementable.

> The PERQ, on which the parameter list of a function must have a constant
> length, the same length for all calls.

My PERQ has been microcoded as a C machine (rather than a Pascal machine)
and runs a version of Unix called PNX = Version 7 + Window Manager + some
System III utilities and system calls.

 is supplied and seems to work perfectly. The CALLING function
pushes the arguments onto the stack; the CALLED function just grabs them
and doesn't care how many there are.

Sounds to me like whoever tried to implement C and Unix on top of an
inappropriate (microcoded) architecture was misguided (:-)

Robert J Stroud,
University of Newcastle upon Tyne.

..!ukc!cheviot!robert