> I'm not sure I would ask for stack support in hardware - that tends > to be more expensive than you really want.
I was thinking of hardware support for stack over/underflow detection/diagnosis. A lot easier (in my hardware ignorance <g>) to have that detection with some sort of "fence register" in hardware than having to have compare logic at the front of every subroutine, right at the moment when the subroutine is shortest on registers and diagnostic resources. FWIW, when I last implemented the sort of "vendor framework" that others have referred to, I know I solved the "how to diagnose" issue by having a stack error at the front of a subroutine branch to some specific odd address in low memory: C stackptr,stackfence BL X'BAD' as I recall. Low overhead, foolproof diagnosis. Charles -----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Craddock, Chris Sent: Sunday, October 22, 2006 7:04 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Is the teaching of non-reentrant HLASM coding practices ever defensible? > I meant in theory. I meant had they done this "back when." I meant as > opposed to 100 things that Chris might wish for and that other OSes do > routinely, just these two things would be (would have been) a huge > improvement. Chris has done rather more than just wish for "it". In a recent former life, I built "it" and it's fair to say I'm missing "it". But I digress. I'm not sure I would ask for stack support in hardware - that tends to be more expensive than you really want. However, it is entirely fair to expect the operating system to materialize a fully-functional runtime ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
