Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!snorkelwacker!usc!srhqla!demott!kdq
From: kdq@demott.COM (Kevin D. Quitt)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: Why The Move To RISC Architectures?  ('386 vs. RISC)
Message-ID: <93@demott.COM>
Date: 22 Mar 90 18:20:51 GMT
References: <628@s3.ireq.hydro.qc.ca>
Reply-To: kdq@demott.COM (Kevin D. Quitt)
Organization: DeMott Electronics Co., Van Nuys CA
Lines: 22

In article <628@s3.ireq.hydro.qc.ca> robert@ireq.hydro.qc.ca (R.Meunier 8516) writes:
>
>	Once a compiler is completed for a RISC Architecture, it should
>be easely ported to another one because the RISC instruction between
>two RISC microprossesor should be the almost the same.


    In your dreams, maybe.  What ever gave you this idea? Have you
looked at the different architecture styles? Use of register frames for
parameter passing, number of registers, etc.  RISC architectures are no
more alike than CISC or buildings. 

kdq
-- 

Kevin D. Quitt                          Manager, Software Development
DeMott Electronics Co.                  VOICE (818) 988-4975
14707 Keswick St.                       FAX   (818) 997-1190
Van Nuys, CA  91405-1266                MODEM (818) 997-4496 Telebit PEP last
34 12 N  118 27 W                       srhqla!demott!kdq   kdq@demott.com

 "Next time, Jack, write a God-damned memo!" - Jack Ryan - Hunt for Red October