On 19/11/2009, at 8:36 PM, Rhythmic Fistman wrote: >> Actually the explanation I read seems bogus. The problem >> with incremental stack growth is that whilst it conserves memory >> it still eats up a huge amount of address space (otherwise you >> run out of address space). > > I was hoping that it was stackless.
The design suggests low stack usage is possible. However every program needs a place to keep data which is located by a pointer: use of a stack pointer is common because it is built into the hardware. However a register pointing at a heap allocated object is also viable. But stack allocate/ deallocate is fast, with the normal problem of any linear store: pre-allocation of address space. Ocaml actually has ultra-fast linear heap allocation, with the collector re-organising stuff (but Ocaml uses a stack as well). -- john skaller skal...@users.sourceforge.net ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Let Crystal Reports handle the reporting - Free Crystal Reports 2008 30-Day trial. Simplify your report design, integration and deployment - and focus on what you do best, core application coding. Discover what's new with Crystal Reports now. http://p.sf.net/sfu/bobj-july _______________________________________________ Felix-language mailing list Felix-language@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/felix-language
