Re: Rep:[f-cpu] Another proposition for a call convention

[Thomas Lavergne <thomas.lavergne@laposte.net>]

On Fri, 07 Jun 2002 09:45:31 -0600, Ben Franchuk wrote:
>Christophe wrote:
>
>> R60 : return adress
>> R61 : global pointer
>> R62 : Frame pointer
>> R63 : stack pointer
>(snip)
>> Are you speaking about frame pointer ? the only real purpose of
>>frame pointer
>> is to help for debug but in a release we don't really need a frame
>>pointer.
>> Unless it is the case for IA32 for example, and I'm quite sure for
>>most other
>> CPUs too. There is no real reason to get rid of it nor to be
>>forced to use it.
>> So I think it shouldn't be a problem.
>
>I think pascal needs a base pointer for stack frames as well as a
>frame
>pointer.

No you don't need it, I have worked on some Pascal compiler without it
but in case of function in function you must have it or a stack for
parameters (stack is generaly most simple to handle but base pointer is
speeder), but you can handle it internaly and you don't need to specify
it in a general call convention.

>With languages that use objects like C++ you could have a lot of
>hidden
>pointers
>used for message passing and indirect function calls.

In most of case the only thing you must have is a pointer to the object
that own the current method, and generaly it was passed as the first
parameter so you can use same calling convention.

--
Thomas Lavergne                       "Le vrai rêveur est celui qui rêve
                                       de l'impossible."  (Elsa Triolet)
thomas.lavergne@laposte.net                                      
d-12@laposte.net    ICQ:#137121910     http://assoc.wanadoo.fr/thallium/


*************************************************************
To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to majordomo@seul.org with
unsubscribe f-cpu       in the body. http://f-cpu.seul.org/