Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!snorkelwacker!spdcc!esegue!johnl
From: johnl@esegue.segue.boston.ma.us (John R. Levine)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: Why The Move To RISC Architectures?  ('386 vs. RISC)
Message-ID: <1990Mar22.190941.1184@esegue.segue.boston.ma.us>
Date: 22 Mar 90 19:09:41 GMT
References: <28012@cup.portal.com> <289@emdeng.Dayton.NCR.COM>
Reply-To: johnl@esegue.segue.boston.ma.us (John R. Levine)
Organization: Segue Software, Cambridge MA
Lines: 14

In article <289@emdeng.Dayton.NCR.COM> hrich@emdeng.UUCP (George.H.Harry.Rich) writes:
>It might even be true that a complex instruction set designed ideally for
>compiler code generation might beat RISC. ...

I doubt it.  The IBM 801 project included some of the best compiler people
around and they came up with the original RISC machine which was quite
stripped down, and an extremely fancy compiler named PL.8 which generates
fantastic code for it.  There are some slightly exotic instructions, e.g.
shift register N and put the result in register N+1, but nothing very
complicated.
-- 
John R. Levine, Segue Software, POB 349, Cambridge MA 02238, +1 617 864 9650
johnl@esegue.segue.boston.ma.us, {ima|lotus|spdcc}!esegue!johnl
"Now, we are all jelly doughnuts."