The largest embedded assembly projects I wrote used about 20 bytes of stack at most. But I didn't use C or recursive functions, which would been an exponentially larger stack crasher
@Jonathan Lamothe Depending on the specific system, complex asynchronous code via timer interrupts (or raster interrupts, or I/O interrupts) is possible, but only one "thread" should use the stack.
For example, by default the Commodore 64 has a timer interrupt to trigger code to handle keyboard scanning, blinking the cursor, and other stuff. It's a non-trivial amount of code, but it does not mess with the stack.
Isaac Kuo
in reply to Jonathan Lamothe • • •Yeah, and you have no choice about the location of the stack. Yippee!
The 6502 was designed around minimizing cost, and this is one fun example.
But to be honest, I've never found the limited stack size to be a problem in practice.
Jonathan Lamothe likes this.
Jonathan Lamothe
in reply to Isaac Kuo • •𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕟𝕖𝕒 🏳️⚧️
in reply to Jonathan Lamothe • • •Isaac Kuo
in reply to Jonathan Lamothe • • •@Jonathan Lamothe Depending on the specific system, complex asynchronous code via timer interrupts (or raster interrupts, or I/O interrupts) is possible, but only one "thread" should use the stack.
For example, by default the Commodore 64 has a timer interrupt to trigger code to handle keyboard scanning, blinking the cursor, and other stuff. It's a non-trivial amount of code, but it does not mess with the stack.