From: address@nospicedham.not.available   
      
   Bernard,   
      
   > Sorry, but I think the pictures shown in my blog answer all of the above   
   > questions.   
      
   Read what Mike said and I asked him in regard to it.  Do you see any field   
   in that stack frame of yours that indicates some kind of "maximum number of   
   called function arguments" ?   I sure don't.   
      
   And even if I would, seeing it would not clarify the reason for its   
   existance, which is what my question and remark was about.   
      
   Also, Mike referred to both arguments as well as parameters.  Even though   
   they, commonly, refer to the same thing.  Your pictures do not clarify that   
   at all.   
      
   Actually, those make it more confusing, as you have *two* parameter blocks,   
   one "in", and one "outside" of the procedure, and no argument block.  Also,   
   no idea to how the caller would be able to fill that second block of   
   parameters, or why and why two (and no, I do not want to have that   
   explained).   
      
   > Not in the context of the text I replied to. The RET loads the current   
   > stack element into rIP and adds 2, 4 or 8 to rSP. What else do you think   
   > the RET is doing?   
      
   Don't play the fool bernard, it does not suit you.   
      
   > Nothing. I just told you that the anonymous caller is yourself in almost   
   > all cases (except you provide a function library).   
      
   And again: that is relevant ... why exactly ?     And no, I'm not going to   
   second guess your intentions there.   
      
   > It's no trivia on a processor with just seven registers if you abuse one   
   > of them to store data which *already are present* in another register   
   > [snip]   
      
   And I just told you, *by example*, that-and-why your approach has a problem   
   / is untrue at times.   Ignoring it does not magically make it go away, no   
   matter how much you would like it to happen.   
      
   > I replied to the text I quoted, and answered all questions (at least I   
   > think I did) more or less extensive   
      
   All you did was a vague handwaving to your webpage, and left me to my own   
   devices to try to match my questions up with what is on it.   
      
   But, do (try to) prove me wrong.   
      
      
   Actually, strike that, as I think I'm going to discontinue this   
   conversation.   You are obviously not willing to explain anything, but   
   instead are activily evading and ignoring my questions and remarks, as well   
   as either hiding behind empty, and largely non-relevant diddel-daddel, or   
   trying to swamp me with lots of hey I have to work my way thru in search of   
   a (not even existing) needle.    As such we are at a collision course which   
   will do neither of us any good.  So, goodbye.   
      
   Best wishes for the new year by the way.   
      
   Regards,   
   Rudy Wieser   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)