Does the in-code argument passing conventions used on PDP-11's have a name?












5















Some subroutine calls on PDP-11 machines would be coded with the arguments appearing immediately after JSR or EMT instruction, something like this (apologies for not knowing the exact MACRO syntax):



    jsr r5,WRITE_STRING
.byte 'This is some string'.'0'
continue:
; do stuff
rts pc

WRITE_STRING:
movb (r5)+,r0
beq done
.PRINT r0
br WRITE_STRING
done:
inc r5
bic #1,r5
jmp (r5)


The jsr instruction sets r5 to point to the beginning of an ASCIZ string that is located in-line in the code, right after the jsr. The WRITE_STRING subroutine then reads the bytes pointed to by r5 and prints them out until the terminating zero is found. r5 is then aligned property, and control is returned to the caller with jmp (r5).



There were variants of this calling conventions; for instance the arguments could be indirect, in which case pointers to the actual arguments would be inlined in code, rather than the arguments themselves.



Was there a name for this in-line argument technique?










share|improve this question







New contributor




John Källén is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.





















  • For common cases where code size would be more important than execution speed, including most uses variadic arguments, it would seem like code size could often have been reduced by having a generic "call function" function that would process encoded information stored immediately after the call itself which would describe the function and its arguments, reducing the size of code needed to supply them to the caller.

    – supercat
    9 hours ago











  • Note that on systems using split I/D address spaces, this calling convention may not work as expected, because the argument fetches will come from the Data space rather than from the Instruction space.

    – Ken Gober
    3 hours ago
















5















Some subroutine calls on PDP-11 machines would be coded with the arguments appearing immediately after JSR or EMT instruction, something like this (apologies for not knowing the exact MACRO syntax):



    jsr r5,WRITE_STRING
.byte 'This is some string'.'0'
continue:
; do stuff
rts pc

WRITE_STRING:
movb (r5)+,r0
beq done
.PRINT r0
br WRITE_STRING
done:
inc r5
bic #1,r5
jmp (r5)


The jsr instruction sets r5 to point to the beginning of an ASCIZ string that is located in-line in the code, right after the jsr. The WRITE_STRING subroutine then reads the bytes pointed to by r5 and prints them out until the terminating zero is found. r5 is then aligned property, and control is returned to the caller with jmp (r5).



There were variants of this calling conventions; for instance the arguments could be indirect, in which case pointers to the actual arguments would be inlined in code, rather than the arguments themselves.



Was there a name for this in-line argument technique?










share|improve this question







New contributor




John Källén is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.





















  • For common cases where code size would be more important than execution speed, including most uses variadic arguments, it would seem like code size could often have been reduced by having a generic "call function" function that would process encoded information stored immediately after the call itself which would describe the function and its arguments, reducing the size of code needed to supply them to the caller.

    – supercat
    9 hours ago











  • Note that on systems using split I/D address spaces, this calling convention may not work as expected, because the argument fetches will come from the Data space rather than from the Instruction space.

    – Ken Gober
    3 hours ago














5












5








5








Some subroutine calls on PDP-11 machines would be coded with the arguments appearing immediately after JSR or EMT instruction, something like this (apologies for not knowing the exact MACRO syntax):



    jsr r5,WRITE_STRING
.byte 'This is some string'.'0'
continue:
; do stuff
rts pc

WRITE_STRING:
movb (r5)+,r0
beq done
.PRINT r0
br WRITE_STRING
done:
inc r5
bic #1,r5
jmp (r5)


The jsr instruction sets r5 to point to the beginning of an ASCIZ string that is located in-line in the code, right after the jsr. The WRITE_STRING subroutine then reads the bytes pointed to by r5 and prints them out until the terminating zero is found. r5 is then aligned property, and control is returned to the caller with jmp (r5).



There were variants of this calling conventions; for instance the arguments could be indirect, in which case pointers to the actual arguments would be inlined in code, rather than the arguments themselves.



Was there a name for this in-line argument technique?










share|improve this question







New contributor




John Källén is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.












Some subroutine calls on PDP-11 machines would be coded with the arguments appearing immediately after JSR or EMT instruction, something like this (apologies for not knowing the exact MACRO syntax):



    jsr r5,WRITE_STRING
.byte 'This is some string'.'0'
continue:
; do stuff
rts pc

WRITE_STRING:
movb (r5)+,r0
beq done
.PRINT r0
br WRITE_STRING
done:
inc r5
bic #1,r5
jmp (r5)


The jsr instruction sets r5 to point to the beginning of an ASCIZ string that is located in-line in the code, right after the jsr. The WRITE_STRING subroutine then reads the bytes pointed to by r5 and prints them out until the terminating zero is found. r5 is then aligned property, and control is returned to the caller with jmp (r5).



There were variants of this calling conventions; for instance the arguments could be indirect, in which case pointers to the actual arguments would be inlined in code, rather than the arguments themselves.



Was there a name for this in-line argument technique?







pdp-11






share|improve this question







New contributor




John Källén is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.











share|improve this question







New contributor




John Källén is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









share|improve this question




share|improve this question






New contributor




John Källén is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









asked 11 hours ago









John KällénJohn Källén

1263




1263




New contributor




John Källén is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.





New contributor





John Källén is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






John Källén is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.













  • For common cases where code size would be more important than execution speed, including most uses variadic arguments, it would seem like code size could often have been reduced by having a generic "call function" function that would process encoded information stored immediately after the call itself which would describe the function and its arguments, reducing the size of code needed to supply them to the caller.

    – supercat
    9 hours ago











  • Note that on systems using split I/D address spaces, this calling convention may not work as expected, because the argument fetches will come from the Data space rather than from the Instruction space.

    – Ken Gober
    3 hours ago



















  • For common cases where code size would be more important than execution speed, including most uses variadic arguments, it would seem like code size could often have been reduced by having a generic "call function" function that would process encoded information stored immediately after the call itself which would describe the function and its arguments, reducing the size of code needed to supply them to the caller.

    – supercat
    9 hours ago











  • Note that on systems using split I/D address spaces, this calling convention may not work as expected, because the argument fetches will come from the Data space rather than from the Instruction space.

    – Ken Gober
    3 hours ago

















For common cases where code size would be more important than execution speed, including most uses variadic arguments, it would seem like code size could often have been reduced by having a generic "call function" function that would process encoded information stored immediately after the call itself which would describe the function and its arguments, reducing the size of code needed to supply them to the caller.

– supercat
9 hours ago





For common cases where code size would be more important than execution speed, including most uses variadic arguments, it would seem like code size could often have been reduced by having a generic "call function" function that would process encoded information stored immediately after the call itself which would describe the function and its arguments, reducing the size of code needed to supply them to the caller.

– supercat
9 hours ago













Note that on systems using split I/D address spaces, this calling convention may not work as expected, because the argument fetches will come from the Data space rather than from the Instruction space.

– Ken Gober
3 hours ago





Note that on systems using split I/D address spaces, this calling convention may not work as expected, because the argument fetches will come from the Data space rather than from the Instruction space.

– Ken Gober
3 hours ago










2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes


















7














The older PDP-8 did similar.  It had only one register to speak of (the accumulator), so a subroutine that took several parameters would typically provide a set of values and/or pointers to values immediately after the call instruction (JMS).  The called routine would increment the return address to access parameters, and finally to return to the caller just after the parameter block.



This text describes the parameter passing as "in-line":
https://people.cs.clemson.edu/~mark/subroutines/pdp8.html.



The PDP-8 handbook "Introduction to Programming", January 1969, page 3-19, item #6 describes it simply with the following:




The second number to be multiplied is brought into the subroutine by the TAD I MULT instruction since it is stored in the location specified by the address that the JMS instruction automatically stores in the first location of the subroutine [i.e. the return address]This is a common technique for transferring information to a subroutine.




The first instruction of a subroutine was where the return address is stored by the JMS instruction.  Thus, this word was used to pick up parameters as well as to return to the function's caller.  The PDP-8 had fixed size instructions and data words of 12-bits (word addressing only); it also supported a memory indirect addressing mode, and a memory increment operation, so this approach worked fairly well.






share|improve this answer
























  • For languages where parameters are passed by reference, and variables are statically assigned (=have fixed virtual addresses), that approach may be considered "natural". Code the "call" instruction followed by the addresses of the actual-parameters; easy. This probably suits early Fortran on the -11, but as noted, split I/D breaks that. To answer the question though: I knew of no name except "inline arguments".

    – another-dave
    2 hours ago



















3














I do not know any specific name here. It was usually called a 'Parameter List'.



It may be due the fact, that this way was more on less the standard handling on many early systems supporting subroutine calls. The need of special names usually only arises when additional methods come into use.



It's inherent benefit is that no additional parameter register is needed, as the return address is stored in the link register, which than can double as parameter list pointer, only to be advanced while processing, and at the end holding the return address (after the parameter list) (*1). For mainframe systems it was the standard calling convention.



Using the stack for return address handling is a rather new development - compared with parameter passing - but even then it was used quite a lot. Just think the way OS calls (*2) are made in Apple ProDOS.





*1 - In fact, it wouldn't at all be wired to think of it as a stack pointer to access (and pop) the parameters - and when all parameters are removed it holds the return address.



*2 - MLI or Machine Language Interface in ProDOS lingua. Here a the JSR to $BF00, the ProDOS entry point, is followed by a byte defining the function call and a word holding the address of a parameter block for this function.






share|improve this answer

























    Your Answer








    StackExchange.ready(function() {
    var channelOptions = {
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "648"
    };
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
    createEditor();
    });
    }
    else {
    createEditor();
    }
    });

    function createEditor() {
    StackExchange.prepareEditor({
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
    convertImagesToLinks: false,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: null,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader: {
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    },
    noCode: true, onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    });


    }
    });






    John Källén is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.










    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function () {
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fretrocomputing.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f9328%2fdoes-the-in-code-argument-passing-conventions-used-on-pdp-11s-have-a-name%23new-answer', 'question_page');
    }
    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    2 Answers
    2






    active

    oldest

    votes








    2 Answers
    2






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    7














    The older PDP-8 did similar.  It had only one register to speak of (the accumulator), so a subroutine that took several parameters would typically provide a set of values and/or pointers to values immediately after the call instruction (JMS).  The called routine would increment the return address to access parameters, and finally to return to the caller just after the parameter block.



    This text describes the parameter passing as "in-line":
    https://people.cs.clemson.edu/~mark/subroutines/pdp8.html.



    The PDP-8 handbook "Introduction to Programming", January 1969, page 3-19, item #6 describes it simply with the following:




    The second number to be multiplied is brought into the subroutine by the TAD I MULT instruction since it is stored in the location specified by the address that the JMS instruction automatically stores in the first location of the subroutine [i.e. the return address]This is a common technique for transferring information to a subroutine.




    The first instruction of a subroutine was where the return address is stored by the JMS instruction.  Thus, this word was used to pick up parameters as well as to return to the function's caller.  The PDP-8 had fixed size instructions and data words of 12-bits (word addressing only); it also supported a memory indirect addressing mode, and a memory increment operation, so this approach worked fairly well.






    share|improve this answer
























    • For languages where parameters are passed by reference, and variables are statically assigned (=have fixed virtual addresses), that approach may be considered "natural". Code the "call" instruction followed by the addresses of the actual-parameters; easy. This probably suits early Fortran on the -11, but as noted, split I/D breaks that. To answer the question though: I knew of no name except "inline arguments".

      – another-dave
      2 hours ago
















    7














    The older PDP-8 did similar.  It had only one register to speak of (the accumulator), so a subroutine that took several parameters would typically provide a set of values and/or pointers to values immediately after the call instruction (JMS).  The called routine would increment the return address to access parameters, and finally to return to the caller just after the parameter block.



    This text describes the parameter passing as "in-line":
    https://people.cs.clemson.edu/~mark/subroutines/pdp8.html.



    The PDP-8 handbook "Introduction to Programming", January 1969, page 3-19, item #6 describes it simply with the following:




    The second number to be multiplied is brought into the subroutine by the TAD I MULT instruction since it is stored in the location specified by the address that the JMS instruction automatically stores in the first location of the subroutine [i.e. the return address]This is a common technique for transferring information to a subroutine.




    The first instruction of a subroutine was where the return address is stored by the JMS instruction.  Thus, this word was used to pick up parameters as well as to return to the function's caller.  The PDP-8 had fixed size instructions and data words of 12-bits (word addressing only); it also supported a memory indirect addressing mode, and a memory increment operation, so this approach worked fairly well.






    share|improve this answer
























    • For languages where parameters are passed by reference, and variables are statically assigned (=have fixed virtual addresses), that approach may be considered "natural". Code the "call" instruction followed by the addresses of the actual-parameters; easy. This probably suits early Fortran on the -11, but as noted, split I/D breaks that. To answer the question though: I knew of no name except "inline arguments".

      – another-dave
      2 hours ago














    7












    7








    7







    The older PDP-8 did similar.  It had only one register to speak of (the accumulator), so a subroutine that took several parameters would typically provide a set of values and/or pointers to values immediately after the call instruction (JMS).  The called routine would increment the return address to access parameters, and finally to return to the caller just after the parameter block.



    This text describes the parameter passing as "in-line":
    https://people.cs.clemson.edu/~mark/subroutines/pdp8.html.



    The PDP-8 handbook "Introduction to Programming", January 1969, page 3-19, item #6 describes it simply with the following:




    The second number to be multiplied is brought into the subroutine by the TAD I MULT instruction since it is stored in the location specified by the address that the JMS instruction automatically stores in the first location of the subroutine [i.e. the return address]This is a common technique for transferring information to a subroutine.




    The first instruction of a subroutine was where the return address is stored by the JMS instruction.  Thus, this word was used to pick up parameters as well as to return to the function's caller.  The PDP-8 had fixed size instructions and data words of 12-bits (word addressing only); it also supported a memory indirect addressing mode, and a memory increment operation, so this approach worked fairly well.






    share|improve this answer













    The older PDP-8 did similar.  It had only one register to speak of (the accumulator), so a subroutine that took several parameters would typically provide a set of values and/or pointers to values immediately after the call instruction (JMS).  The called routine would increment the return address to access parameters, and finally to return to the caller just after the parameter block.



    This text describes the parameter passing as "in-line":
    https://people.cs.clemson.edu/~mark/subroutines/pdp8.html.



    The PDP-8 handbook "Introduction to Programming", January 1969, page 3-19, item #6 describes it simply with the following:




    The second number to be multiplied is brought into the subroutine by the TAD I MULT instruction since it is stored in the location specified by the address that the JMS instruction automatically stores in the first location of the subroutine [i.e. the return address]This is a common technique for transferring information to a subroutine.




    The first instruction of a subroutine was where the return address is stored by the JMS instruction.  Thus, this word was used to pick up parameters as well as to return to the function's caller.  The PDP-8 had fixed size instructions and data words of 12-bits (word addressing only); it also supported a memory indirect addressing mode, and a memory increment operation, so this approach worked fairly well.







    share|improve this answer












    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer










    answered 11 hours ago









    Erik EidtErik Eidt

    1,097412




    1,097412













    • For languages where parameters are passed by reference, and variables are statically assigned (=have fixed virtual addresses), that approach may be considered "natural". Code the "call" instruction followed by the addresses of the actual-parameters; easy. This probably suits early Fortran on the -11, but as noted, split I/D breaks that. To answer the question though: I knew of no name except "inline arguments".

      – another-dave
      2 hours ago



















    • For languages where parameters are passed by reference, and variables are statically assigned (=have fixed virtual addresses), that approach may be considered "natural". Code the "call" instruction followed by the addresses of the actual-parameters; easy. This probably suits early Fortran on the -11, but as noted, split I/D breaks that. To answer the question though: I knew of no name except "inline arguments".

      – another-dave
      2 hours ago

















    For languages where parameters are passed by reference, and variables are statically assigned (=have fixed virtual addresses), that approach may be considered "natural". Code the "call" instruction followed by the addresses of the actual-parameters; easy. This probably suits early Fortran on the -11, but as noted, split I/D breaks that. To answer the question though: I knew of no name except "inline arguments".

    – another-dave
    2 hours ago





    For languages where parameters are passed by reference, and variables are statically assigned (=have fixed virtual addresses), that approach may be considered "natural". Code the "call" instruction followed by the addresses of the actual-parameters; easy. This probably suits early Fortran on the -11, but as noted, split I/D breaks that. To answer the question though: I knew of no name except "inline arguments".

    – another-dave
    2 hours ago











    3














    I do not know any specific name here. It was usually called a 'Parameter List'.



    It may be due the fact, that this way was more on less the standard handling on many early systems supporting subroutine calls. The need of special names usually only arises when additional methods come into use.



    It's inherent benefit is that no additional parameter register is needed, as the return address is stored in the link register, which than can double as parameter list pointer, only to be advanced while processing, and at the end holding the return address (after the parameter list) (*1). For mainframe systems it was the standard calling convention.



    Using the stack for return address handling is a rather new development - compared with parameter passing - but even then it was used quite a lot. Just think the way OS calls (*2) are made in Apple ProDOS.





    *1 - In fact, it wouldn't at all be wired to think of it as a stack pointer to access (and pop) the parameters - and when all parameters are removed it holds the return address.



    *2 - MLI or Machine Language Interface in ProDOS lingua. Here a the JSR to $BF00, the ProDOS entry point, is followed by a byte defining the function call and a word holding the address of a parameter block for this function.






    share|improve this answer






























      3














      I do not know any specific name here. It was usually called a 'Parameter List'.



      It may be due the fact, that this way was more on less the standard handling on many early systems supporting subroutine calls. The need of special names usually only arises when additional methods come into use.



      It's inherent benefit is that no additional parameter register is needed, as the return address is stored in the link register, which than can double as parameter list pointer, only to be advanced while processing, and at the end holding the return address (after the parameter list) (*1). For mainframe systems it was the standard calling convention.



      Using the stack for return address handling is a rather new development - compared with parameter passing - but even then it was used quite a lot. Just think the way OS calls (*2) are made in Apple ProDOS.





      *1 - In fact, it wouldn't at all be wired to think of it as a stack pointer to access (and pop) the parameters - and when all parameters are removed it holds the return address.



      *2 - MLI or Machine Language Interface in ProDOS lingua. Here a the JSR to $BF00, the ProDOS entry point, is followed by a byte defining the function call and a word holding the address of a parameter block for this function.






      share|improve this answer




























        3












        3








        3







        I do not know any specific name here. It was usually called a 'Parameter List'.



        It may be due the fact, that this way was more on less the standard handling on many early systems supporting subroutine calls. The need of special names usually only arises when additional methods come into use.



        It's inherent benefit is that no additional parameter register is needed, as the return address is stored in the link register, which than can double as parameter list pointer, only to be advanced while processing, and at the end holding the return address (after the parameter list) (*1). For mainframe systems it was the standard calling convention.



        Using the stack for return address handling is a rather new development - compared with parameter passing - but even then it was used quite a lot. Just think the way OS calls (*2) are made in Apple ProDOS.





        *1 - In fact, it wouldn't at all be wired to think of it as a stack pointer to access (and pop) the parameters - and when all parameters are removed it holds the return address.



        *2 - MLI or Machine Language Interface in ProDOS lingua. Here a the JSR to $BF00, the ProDOS entry point, is followed by a byte defining the function call and a word holding the address of a parameter block for this function.






        share|improve this answer















        I do not know any specific name here. It was usually called a 'Parameter List'.



        It may be due the fact, that this way was more on less the standard handling on many early systems supporting subroutine calls. The need of special names usually only arises when additional methods come into use.



        It's inherent benefit is that no additional parameter register is needed, as the return address is stored in the link register, which than can double as parameter list pointer, only to be advanced while processing, and at the end holding the return address (after the parameter list) (*1). For mainframe systems it was the standard calling convention.



        Using the stack for return address handling is a rather new development - compared with parameter passing - but even then it was used quite a lot. Just think the way OS calls (*2) are made in Apple ProDOS.





        *1 - In fact, it wouldn't at all be wired to think of it as a stack pointer to access (and pop) the parameters - and when all parameters are removed it holds the return address.



        *2 - MLI or Machine Language Interface in ProDOS lingua. Here a the JSR to $BF00, the ProDOS entry point, is followed by a byte defining the function call and a word holding the address of a parameter block for this function.







        share|improve this answer














        share|improve this answer



        share|improve this answer








        edited 11 hours ago

























        answered 11 hours ago









        RaffzahnRaffzahn

        52.7k6124213




        52.7k6124213






















            John Källén is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.










            draft saved

            draft discarded


















            John Källén is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.













            John Källén is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.












            John Källén is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
















            Thanks for contributing an answer to Retrocomputing Stack Exchange!


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid



            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fretrocomputing.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f9328%2fdoes-the-in-code-argument-passing-conventions-used-on-pdp-11s-have-a-name%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown







            Popular posts from this blog

            If I really need a card on my start hand, how many mulligans make sense? [duplicate]

            Alcedinidae

            Can an atomic nucleus contain both particles and antiparticles? [duplicate]