On May 21, 2013, at 7:02 AM, Alexander Burger <a...@software-lab.de> wrote:
> On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 05:56:52AM +0200, Rand Dow wrote:
>> Each co-routine should have it's own separate stack. Best practices with
>> stack management today have a sufficiently large stack that grows and then
>> terminates in unmapped memory. If it is attempted to grow the stack too
> OK. That's exactly how I implemented it.
>> And certainly operating system events could overwrite things deeper on the
>> stack during a context switch.
> As I said, these would use the system stack. And even if they would use
> the user stack, there should be sufficient space. As I said, we have 1
> MB per stack frame, and this can be easily extended with the 'stack'
The hardware (CPU) will write at least two words (instruction pointer and CPU
status register, and maybe more) onto the user stack before switching to the
> Again, my problem is not to have a stack frame for each task, but having
> stack frames BELOW the active stack pointer.
I'm not sure about this in the general case. I would feel uncomfortable about
I'm stilled amazed at PicoLisp! I wish I could use it again in my work!