Skip Navigation

The Computer Journal 1980 23(2):153-160; doi:10.1093/comjnl/23.2.153
© 1980 by British Computer Society
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (2)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Goodwin, D. T.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Partial non-underflow and non-overflow of an arithmetic stack

D. T. Goodwin *

Department of Computer Science, University of Keele, Newcastle, UK

This paper continues analysis of the model of arithmetic stack behaviour set up in Goodwin (1977). There conditions computable at high level language compile time were given under which run time stack overflow or underflow could not occur. Because the conditions are strict, it is worth considering the question ‘Is it possible for no overflow nor underflow to occur, even if the conditions do not apply?’ A number of results are presented here, including an algorithm for finding the smallest stack size, if any, which permits an infinity of different program runs to take place.

Received August 1976. revised July 1978.

* Department of Computer Science, University of Keele, Newcastle, staffs., ST5 5BG


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer:
Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.