[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

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

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
>> 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
>> 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

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
>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 rÍveur est celui qui rÍve
                                       de l'impossible."  (Elsa Triolet)
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/