Date: Thu, 7 Nov 1996 09:32:00 -0800 (PST) From: Jonathan Mini <j_mini@efn.org> To: Luigi Rizzo <luigi@labinfo.iet.unipi.it> Cc: Juergen Lock <nox@jelal.hb.north.de>, msmith@atrad.adelaide.edu.au, babkin@hq.icb.chel.su, luigi@iet.unipi.it, emulation@freebsd.org Subject: Re: New PC-Emu (fwd) Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.95.961107092949.26189A-100000@garcia.efn.org> In-Reply-To: <199611070816.JAA10571@labinfo.iet.unipi.it>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 7 Nov 1996, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
> > (not that i've seen a program actually using it yet but you never know...)
>
> perhaps code generated by some pascal compiler with bound checks
> enabled ? I am under the impression that enter, leave and bound
> were introduced to get better support for Pascal.
Borland's Turbo/Borland Pascal has an "advanced stack checking" option for
a few releases.. Same thing with thier C compilers. This opetion uses
bound to stack check. The problem with it is that you can't use it inside
a few unhappy programs like windows, so they removed it.
Enter and leave are used by just about everybody. Excpet Watcom, whihc
just ignores stack frames. ;)
Jon Mini, j_mini@efn.org, mini@4j.lane.edu
GAMMA Development Team
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I think I can, I think I can, I think I can...."
little.blue.engine:Reality Protection Fault. (core dumped)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.SUN.3.95.961107092949.26189A-100000>