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

Re: Re: [f-cpu] New suggestion about call convention

>De: ben franchuk <bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca>
>A: f-cpu@seul.org
>Sujet: Re: [f-cpu] New suggestion about call convention
>Michael Riepe wrote:
>> I have to admit that static (link-time) allocation and register masking
>> together will probably do even better. It also depends very much on the
>> code - the linker may have to take loops etc. into account when it selects
>> the save/restore points. But in general, the `lazy save' algorithm
>> I outlined above should work pretty well.
>BYTE or Dr Dobb's  magazine a few years ago had a good idea when the
>Z80 was still a popular computer. Sort all subroutines into recursive
>and non-recursive piles. Recursive routines use normal stack addressing.
>Non-recursive routines would be sorted into the level of subroutine 
>calls made, and static global memory would be alloted for the variables.
>Since the Z80/8080 does not have easy stack addresssing this idea could
>save time and space.

Makes a lot of sense. but ....
how many years ago was it ? ....
does gcc use this now ?

just curious,

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