Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!samsung!uunet!super!udel.edu!rminnich
From: rminnich@udel.edu (Ronald G Minnich)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: 64 bits for times....
Message-ID: <32015@super.ORG>
Date: 24 Aug 90 13:20:40 GMT
References: <5539@darkstar.ucsc.edu> <13285@yunexus.YorkU.CA> <30728@super.ORG> <26012@bellcore.bellcore.com> <11187@alice.UUCP> <1990Aug23.022416.14798@sco.COM> <703@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM>
Sender: news@super.ORG
Reply-To: rminnich@udel.edu (Ronald G Minnich)
Lines: 21

In article <703@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM>, rtrauben@cortex.Eng.Sun.COM
(Richard Trauben) writes:
|> >       ld.l    r1, CLOCK
|> >       <instr>
|> >       ld.l    r2, CLOCK
|> You just measured the execution time sum of TWO instructions:
|> <instr> PLUS <ld> execution time where the <ld> includes bus 
|> arbitration and memory access time to the TOD clock resource.  

huh? 
CLOCK is a fast register right there on the processor in most cases. 
I can't imagine anyone in their right mind putting that high-res 
clock at the other 
end of a memory bus if it has any kind of resolution. 

Say it ain't so, sean!
ron

1987: We set standards, not Them. Your standard windowing system is NeUWS.
1989: We set standards, not Them. You can have X, but the UI is OpenLock.
1990: Why are you buying all those workstations from Them running Motif?