>>79
You are also an insufferable pedant, and the sort of person for whom it is of paramount importance to always be right. Regardless of what this does to the general usefulness of the conversation at hand. Fuck you.

Indeed, the C standard does not specify a "stack" for the passing of parameters. This is very much true. As with many things, the C standard doesn't specify the down-and-dirty method of implementation for e.g. automatic variables, alloca() or varargs functions. However, can you present a mechanism that achieves the requirements of the C standard with regard to parameter passing, automatic variables and varargs functions via some mechanism that is not a parameter stack?

Thus, as is usual for the C standard, it stays just the minimum amount on the side of not specifying a stack-based mechanism. I claim that a future C standard, were it to specify a stack-based mechanism, would differ from the current standard only in its explicit use of the word "stack".

For all intents and purposes, the conventions of the target architecture that actual people program for are inseparable from the language as it is seen by the programmer. Thus the average C programmer does not give a rat's ass whether the standard specifies a stack for yada-yada or not: practically every implementation of C manages frames on the stack, alloca()s memory on the stack and passes parameters for varargs functions on the stack.