Re: shitty programming [WAS: Chucks address]

[Jaap van Ganswijk <ganswijk@xxxxxxxxx>]

At 17:04 20000614 -0700, M. Simon wrote:
>At 10:06 PM 6/13/00 -0400, vic plichota wrote:
>> > >my 2 cents    - vic
>> >
>> > True. But sometimes that is good enough.
>>
>>
>>Please don't take it personally, it was just a general observation --
>>in fact I appreciate your point -- but I am in an absolutely terrible
>>mood today (had to tell an abusive client to fuck off).
>>
>>
>>cheers   - vic
>
>
>No problem.
>
>In fact I agree.
>
>The sorry state of current hardware and software is because the two disciplines
>have become relatively isolated.
>
>The MISC group are the only ones trying to think about this subject in any 
>deep way.
>
>I read about a group trying to impliment C in hardware. What a hoot.
>C internals are ugly and require LOTS of registers to make things even
>quasi efficient.

C is quite easy to compile for the conventional and RISC
processors as long as they are orthogonal etc.

>Then there is that ugly 'stack frame' . What an terrible use
>of a stack.

What is the alternative? Procedures/functions will need local
memory so they will need some sort of stack mechanisme.
It's also very inexpensive, just decrement the stack pointer
and push the instruction pointer. When you want you can
also use a frame pointer but for C it's not strictly needed.
All displacements on the stack (compared to the stack
pointer) are always known.


Groeten/Greetings,
Jaap

-- Chip Directory
-- http://www.chipdir.com/chipdir/
-- http://www.fh-kl.de/~rscherer/chipdir/ - New in Germany
-- And about 30 other mirror sites world-wide...
--
-- To subscribe to a free 'chip issues, questions and answers'
-- mailing list send a message to listguru@fatcity.com with
-- in the body subscribe chipdir-L