On Jan 22, 2008 9:26 PM, Andrew Lentvorski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 22, 2008 at 06:03:56PM -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >> On Tue, Jan 22, 2008 at 03:24:01PM -0800, SJS wrote: > >>> When did x86 and ARM CPUs get a stack on the CPU? > >> The assembly includes instructions for a stack. I don't know details of > >> where > >> or how the stack is implemented. > > > > Err..ok....x86/ARM assembly sets the esp/sp to a *memory* location so I > > guess I > > could have figered out all on my own that the stack doesn't have fancy > > internal > > CPU support. > > If you are really looking for a stack-based architecture, the keyword > you should use is "transputer" from inmos. > > -a
Or better yet check out Forth based archtectures. I do not have the time nor energy to get you guys to the point of understanding all of this ... but try looking at http://www.ece.cmu.edu/~koopman/stack.html or read the book http://www.ece.cmu.edu/~koopman/stack_computers/index.html Reading this thread is like revisiting the mid 70's ... Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. George Santayana Those who cannot forget the past are condemned to repeat it. BobLQ "Comment on the situation in Northern Ireland" What has happened is that economics trumped technology and x86 register based architectures beat out far superior stack based multiprocessors. But the game continues. See http://www.intellasys.net/products/seaforth/index.php So it goes, BobLQ -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-lpsg
