Talk:Stack frame: Difference between revisions
imported>Nick Johnson m (forgot my sig) |
imported>Subpagination Bot m (Add {{subpages}} and remove checklist (details)) |
||
| (5 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{subpages}} | |||
__TOC__ | |||
=how link to C sharp programming language?= | |||
How am I supposed to write a link to the C-sharp programming language. I think the punctuation is messing it up! --[[User:Nick Johnson|Nick Johnson]] 14:13, 11 April 2007 (CDT) | How am I supposed to write a link to the C-sharp programming language. I think the punctuation is messing it up! --[[User:Nick Johnson|Nick Johnson]] 14:13, 11 April 2007 (CDT) | ||
:I am using [[C sharp]] for the link.[[User:Pat Palmer|Pat Palmer]] 10:40, 24 April 2007 (CDT) | |||
=needs references= | |||
I've added a section for references. Now we need to get some! Any help appreciated.[[User:Pat Palmer|Pat Palmer]] 10:40, 24 April 2007 (CDT) | |||
=not ready for status 1= | |||
I'm revising status to 2 (still under development). Not sure who put it to 1. If you don't agree, please drop a note on my talk page.[[User:Pat Palmer|Pat Palmer]] 02:21, 9 May 2007 (CDT) | |||
=removing the following paragraph; not relevant here= | |||
"Registers vs. stack frames" | |||
Stack frames are not the most efficient way to manage short-lived values, such as formal parameters, local variables, and intermediate computations. On architectures that support it, it is faster to store these in [[register|registers]] than in memory locations. Although some languages in the past (C, notably) allowed the programmer to try to manage whether variables live in regular memory or in a register (dependent on availability of enough registers), in modern computers this many be managed by the processor transparently (unbeknownst to programmers) as part of making processors execute programs rapidly. | |||
:The issue of whether registers (or any other ''fast memory'') is used is not relevant to the concept of a stack. For example, on Solaris (on a SPARC system), the entire stack will be implemented in registers. So what? It's still a stack in registers or in the slowest memory possible.[[User:Pat Palmer|Pat Palmer]] 23:04, 23 August 2007 (CDT) | |||
Latest revision as of 20:48, 14 November 2007
how link to C sharp programming language?
How am I supposed to write a link to the C-sharp programming language. I think the punctuation is messing it up! --Nick Johnson 14:13, 11 April 2007 (CDT)
- I am using C sharp for the link.Pat Palmer 10:40, 24 April 2007 (CDT)
needs references
I've added a section for references. Now we need to get some! Any help appreciated.Pat Palmer 10:40, 24 April 2007 (CDT)
not ready for status 1
I'm revising status to 2 (still under development). Not sure who put it to 1. If you don't agree, please drop a note on my talk page.Pat Palmer 02:21, 9 May 2007 (CDT)
removing the following paragraph; not relevant here
"Registers vs. stack frames" Stack frames are not the most efficient way to manage short-lived values, such as formal parameters, local variables, and intermediate computations. On architectures that support it, it is faster to store these in registers than in memory locations. Although some languages in the past (C, notably) allowed the programmer to try to manage whether variables live in regular memory or in a register (dependent on availability of enough registers), in modern computers this many be managed by the processor transparently (unbeknownst to programmers) as part of making processors execute programs rapidly.
- The issue of whether registers (or any other fast memory) is used is not relevant to the concept of a stack. For example, on Solaris (on a SPARC system), the entire stack will be implemented in registers. So what? It's still a stack in registers or in the slowest memory possible.Pat Palmer 23:04, 23 August 2007 (CDT)