Re: the stack
- From: "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2007 04:27:26 -0500
<bob@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:f45b4608-fafa-4fd3-b73d-d34d84e4287d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
I was just wondering why the stack grows downwards on x86 processors.
The short answer: it was designed that way.
The 8086 was compatible with the 8080. Stanley Mazor of the 8080 design
team designed the 8080 stack that way:
"Deleting the on-chip stack saved chip area, but was a net advantage to the
user -now the stack had unlimited size. I defined the stack as growing
downward from the high end of memory; this facilitated indexing into the
stack and simplified displaying the stack. This was abandoned on the 8086."
http://www.xnumber.com/xnumber/Microcomputer_invention.htm
By "abandoned ...," I think he means the stack was put back on-chip for the
8086.
Numerous past threads on comp.arch, comp.arch.embedded,
alt.folklore.computers, or comp.dsp will blame the 8080, PDP-11, or K&R C...
depending on the author...
Rod Pemberton
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: the stack
- From: Phil Carmody
- Re: the stack
- References:
- the stack
- From: bob
- the stack
- Prev by Date: Re: NASM page
- Next by Date: Re: NASM page
- Previous by thread: the stack
- Next by thread: Re: the stack
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|