[virtmach] register vs. stack machines
Tue, 16 Jul 2002 15:05:27 +0100
i was pointing to the paper because it had been mentioned;
i'm not sure that the GC issues are germane to
the point under discussion.
Received: from punt-2.mail.demon.net by mailstore for firstname.lastname@example.org
id 1026826952:20:29287:53; Tue, 16 Jul 2002 13:42:32 GMT
Received: from tom.iecc.com ([22.214.171.124]) by punt-2.mail.demon.net id
aa2122324; 16 Jul 2002 13:42 GMT
Received: (qmail 22450 invoked by uid 85); 16 Jul 2002 09:42:17 -0400
Received: (qmail 22436 invoked by alias); 16 Jul 2002 09:42:04 -0400
Received: (qmail 22432 invoked from network); 16 Jul 2002 09:42:03 -0400
Received: from unknown (HELO saturn.hactw) (126.96.36.199) by
mail.iecc.com with SMTP; 16 Jul 2002 09:42:03 -0400
Received: by saturn.hactw with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id
<PAQPYX5H>; Tue, 16 Jul 2002 15:41:47 +0200
From: "Durchholz, Joachim" <Joachim.Durchholz@halstenbach.de>
To: "'email@example.com'" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: Re: [virtmach] register vs. stack machines
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 15:41:46 +0200
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
The Dis papers tend to strongly state the advantages of the choices that
were made for Dis, instead of presenting the full engineering trade-offs.
Which makes them great for evangelisation, but not so great for preparing
your own decisions.
For example, the cited paper doesn't discuss the disadvantages of
reference-counting garbage collection (increased memory traffic to keep the
reference counts up-to-date, object reclamation as a possible and unexpected
side effect of pointer assignments which makes it difficult to guarantee
I don't know how far this sloppiness/marketing speak attitude transfers to
their discussion of stack vs. register architecture. I'd rate the Dis
literature as an interesting data point, but not as an authority.
Just my 2c.