As you point out, modern architectures are actually designed to run C efficiently, so I'd say that's a good argument in favor of learning C to learn how (modern) computers work. Pascal is at the same level as C, but no one says "learn Pascal to learn how computers work" because architectures weren't adapted according to that language.

They used to say it though, before UNIX derived OSes took over the computing world.

What general purpose computer exists that doesn't have a stack? Push/pop have been fundamental to all the architectures I've used.

On many systems, if you wanted a stack, you had to implement it in software. For instance, on the Xerox Alto (1973), when you called a subroutine, the subroutine would then call a library routine that would save the return address and set up a stack frame. You'd call another library routine to return from the subroutine and it would pop stuff from the stack.

The 8008, Intel's first 8-bit microprocessor, had an 8-level subroutine stack inside the chip. There were no push or pop instructions.

https://people.cs.clemson.edu/~mark/subroutines/s360.html

XPLINK, a different linkage convention, also for MVS, does have use a stack-based convention:

https://www.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/en/SSLTBW_2.2.0/...

ARM's pop is really a generic ldmia with update. You can use the same instruction in a memcpy.

MIPS, PowerPC, and Alpha don't have anything like push and pop, splitting load/stores and SP increment/decrement into separate instructions.

AArch64 has a dedicated stack pointer, but no explicit push pop.

In general the RISC style is to allocate a stack frame and use regular loads and stores off of SP rather than push and pop.

If a time traveler from a century in the future came back and told me that their programming languages aren't anywhere as fundamentally based on stacks as ours are, I wouldn't be that surprised. I'm not sure any current AI technology (deep learning, etc.) is stack-based.

From the perspective of "stack" as in "stack vs. heap", there's a lot of existing languages where at the language level, there is no such distinction. The dynamic scripting language interpreters put everything in the heap. The underlying C-based VM may be stack based, but the language itself is not. The specification of Go actually never mentions stack vs. heap; all the values just exist. There is a stack and a heap like C, but what goes where is an implementation detail handled by the compiler, not like in C where it is explicit.

To some extent, I think the replies to my post actually demonstrate my point to a great degree. People's conceptions of "how a computer works" are really bent around the C model... but that is not "how a computer works". Computers do not care if you allocate all variables globally and use "goto" to jump between various bits of code. Thousands if not millions of programs have been written that way, and continue to be written in the embedded arena. In fact, at the very bottom-most level (machines with single-digit kilobytes), this is not just an option, but best practice. Computers do not care if you hop around like crazy as you unwind a lazy evaluation. Computers do not care if all the CPU does is ship a program to the GPU and its radically different paradigm. Computers do not care if they are evaluating a neural net or some other AI paradigm that has no recognizable equivalent to any human programming language. If you put an opcode or specialized hardware into something that really does directly evaluate a neural net without any C code in sight, the electronics do not explode. FPGAs do not explode if you do not implement a stack.

C is not how computers work.

It is a particular useful local optimum, but nowadays a lot of that use isn't because "it's how everything works" but because it's a highly supported and polished paradigm used for decades that has a lot of tooling and utility behind it. But understanding C won't give you much insight into a modern processor, a GPU, modern AI, FPGAs, Haskell, Rust, and numerous other things. Because learning languages is generally good regardless, yes, learning C and then Rust will mean you learn Rust faster than just starting from Rust. Learn lots of languages. But there's a lot of ways in which you could equally start from Javascript and learn Rust; many of the concepts may shock the JS developer, but many of the concepts in Rust that the JS programmer just goes "Oh, good, that feature is different but still there" will shock the C developer.

C doesnt "have", or require, a stack, either. It has automatic variables, and I think I looked once and it doesn't even explitly require support for recursive functions.

That means static allocation is insufficient for an implementation of automatic variables in a conformant C compiler. Nevertheless I still like to think of it as a valid implementation sometimes. In contemporary practice many stack variables are basically global variables, in the sense that they are valid during most of the program. And they are degraded to stack variables only as a by-product of a (technically, unnessary) splitting of the program into very fine-grained function calls.

Can you elaborate? I thought I knew what register renaming was supposed to do, but I don't see the tight connection between register renaming and C.

The UltraSPARC processor is a stereotypical example, a RISC processor designed to cater to a C compiler as much as possible: with register renaming, it has 256 virtual registers!

Another related issue is dealing with user/kernel mode transitions and context switches. User/kernel transitions can be made cheaper by compiling the kernel to target a small subset of the architectural registers, but a user mode to user mode context switch would generally require a full save and restore of the massive register file.

And there's also an issue with instruction encoding efficiency. For example, in a typical three-operand RISC instruction format with 32-bit instructions, with 8-bit register operand fields you only have 8 bits remaining for the opcode in an RRR instruction (versus 17 bits for 5-bit operand fields), and 16 bits remaining for both the immediate and opcode in an RRI instruction (versus 22 bits for 5-bit operand fields). You can reduce the average-case instruction size with various encoding tricks, cf. RVC and Thumb, but you cannot make full use of the architectural registers without incurring significant instruction size bloat.

To make the comparison fair, it should be noted that register renaming cannot resolve all dependency hazards that would be possible to resolve with explicit registers. You can still only have as many live values as there are architectural registers. (That's a partial truth because of memory.)

There are of course alternatives to register renaming that can address some of these issues (but as you say register renaming isn't just about this). Register windows (which come in many flavors), valid/dirty bit tracking per register, segregated register types (like data vs address registers in MC68000), swappable register banks, etc.

I think a major reason register renaming is usually married to superscalar and/or deeply pipelined execution is that when you have a lot of physical registers you run into a von Neumann bottleneck unless you have a commensurate amount of execution parallellism. As an extreme case, imagine a 3-stage in-order RISC pipeline with 256 registers. All of the data except for at most 2 registers is sitting at rest at any given time. You'd be better served with a smaller register file and a fast local memory (1-cycle latency, pipelined loads/stores) that can exploit more powerful addressing modes.

On MOS 6502 we used self-modifying code rather than the stack because it was more efficient and that CPU has no instruction and data caches, so they couldn't be corrupted or invalidated.

AFAIK intel cpus have a hardware stack pointer