Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!dali!ogicse!decwrl!pacbell.com!pacbell!demo!jgk
From: jgk@demo.COM (Joe Keane)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: 680x0 upwards compatability (was: 386 machines are workstations?)
Message-ID: <2843@demo.COM>
Date: 25 May 90 18:37:22 GMT
References: <1990May24.113025.7041@xavax.com> <20073@grebyn.com>
Reply-To: jgk@osc.COM (Joe Keane)
Organization: Object Sciences Corp., Menlo Park, CA
Lines: 17

In article <20073@grebyn.com> ckp@grebyn.UUCP (Checkpoint Technologies) writes:
>Of course, Commodore always says "we always told you not to use MOVE SR!
>If you used it, it's your fault you broke!"  Well, I might suggest to
>Commodore and any other computer maker (and I must include chip makers
>too I suppose) that's listening: programmers will never ever universally
>"follow the rules", unless by not doing so their programs don't work.
>You can blame us all you want, and I won't say you're not justified.
>But if you really want programmers to follow rules, those rules had
>better be enforced *now*.

I think this is a ridiculous argument.  How is Commodore supposed to enforce a
restriction on using a _user instruction_?  They said clearly you should not
use it; there's nothing more they can do.  If a programmer uses it, he's an
idiot.  He can't use the excuse that it's a special case, or his compiler put
it out.  He _specifically_ wrote MOVE SR when he knew he shouldn't have.  When
it breaks in the 68010 i have _zero_ sympathy for him; he got exactly what he
deserves.