Re: This week's summary

[Tupshin Harper]

Paolo Molaro wrote:

Traditional processors aren't stack-oriented, not even ones that are
more register-starved than the x86 family. (I'm thinking of the 6502
with it's 1.75 registers here)
   

The wording "stack-oriented processor" is a little misleading, since it
usually means the processor has a stack-oriented instruction set,
instead of a register one. The original context, instead, implies it
refers to GCC's assumptions about the existence of the runtime stack
(as the contiguous area of memory where call frames are stored).
Exactly.

I think a gcc port would require parrot to provide at least a stack

memory area and a register (sp) that points to it. There may be other
issues with the parrot instruction set, but since you have already
hundreds (or thousands?) of opcodes, I guess it wouldn't be an issue to
add a few more if needed:-).
This exactly mirrors my thinking on the issue.

-Tupshin