|[30 earlier articles]|
|Re: Caller/Callee saved Registers email@example.com (1994-03-31)|
|Re: Caller/Callee saved Registers firstname.lastname@example.org.OZ.AU (1994-04-02)|
|Summary -- Caller vs. Callee Saves email@example.com (1994-04-06)|
|Re: Caller/Callee saved Registers firstname.lastname@example.org (1994-04-21)|
|Re: Caller/Callee saved Registers email@example.com (1994-04-22)|
|Re: Caller/Callee saved Registers firstname.lastname@example.org (1994-04-23)|
|Re: Caller/Callee saved Registers email@example.com (1994-04-26)|
|From:||firstname.lastname@example.org (Preston Briggs)|
|Organization:||Rice University, Houston|
|Date:||Tue, 26 Apr 1994 13:37:10 GMT|
>+Steele and Sussman propose an alternative resource called "racks". Rather
>+than a set of registers and a stack, their machine would have a set of these
email@example.com (Henry G. Baker) writes:
>how can non-stack environments be properly handled -- i.e., closures.
>I haven't read the paper in some time, but I don't recall a solution
>to the problem of closures.
>Equally interesting is what happens in the case of non-local returns --
>i.e., longjmp & various kinds of signals.
They don't discuss either problem. I expect you'd have to do the same
sorts of things people do with ordinary registers and stacks -- bundle
them up, somehow, and put them on the heap. I don't see how they have
any advantage over ordinary registers in these instances; indeed,
they're probably a little more awkward (but only slightly).
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.