Content deleted Content added
m Signing comment by Daemonicky - "→Why is Assembly language stack-oriented?: new section" |
Daemonicky (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
Line 10:
The above ("doesn't necessarily need a stack-based processor") is true for most languages, since stacks can easily be implemented in low level software. Non-recursive sub routines can effectively be called without a stack at all, too, through self modifying code (this is how it's done on Propeller processors, AFAIK). For conveniently parsing mathematical expressions in language such as BASIC, i think that you are stuck using an expression stack, though. [[Special:Contributions/88.131.41.70|88.131.41.70]] ([[User talk:88.131.41.70|talk]]) 14:08, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
* True. It needs definition of stack-oriented. I mean, every function call is realized trought stack; if it is not, then either stack is "obfuscated" (trough array, special function ...) or stack is not needed (function call is optimized / inlined). [[User:Daemonicky|Daemonicky]] ([[User talk:Daemonicky|talk]]) 13:23, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
==Confusion in "Operations of the stack" section==
| |||