Re: Locals revisited

albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl writes:

In hindsight my locals definition is not convincing, because carnal
knowledge about the behaviour of the return stack is required.

It's ok if it's for a specific implementation.  But what I'm having
trouble seeing is how the locals get popped in case of an exception.  Do
you not need to implement something like (LOCAL) ?

(I get 30 registers in RISCV that can serve as a stack pointer.)

In some models of the RISCV, only 14, I think.  And in almost all
models, 8 of them are more efficient to address than the rest, because
of the compressed instruction format.