Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!crdgw1!crdos1!davidsen
From: davidsen@crdos1.crd.ge.COM (Wm E Davidsen Jr)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: Computers for users not programmers
Message-ID: <3182@crdos1.crd.ge.COM>
Date: 6 Feb 91 16:38:21 GMT
References: <27A84C5C.24EF@tct.uucp> <13615@lanl.gov> <27AF17B9.72E2@tct.uucp> <5275@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>
Reply-To: davidsen@crdos1.crd.ge.com (bill davidsen)
Organization: GE Corp R&D Center, Schenectady NY
Lines: 24

In article <5275@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) writes:

|                                                                There is the
| mistaken view that hardware should be designed to particular languages, and
| never mind that some programs may be many times slower because of the lack of
| particular instructions.  There is far more concern with "Braille optimization"
| and never mind what the sighted person can do.

  This implies that there is some computer which can't run UNIX because
it has efficient instructions, or that some hardware company has left
out instructions which would make them many times faster. Please tell us
which instructs must be left out for UNIX, or which vendors you think
are so stupid.

  Every CPU I've ever seen has at least a few instructions which are not
used by any distributed part of UNIX. These are available for use by any
compiler, application, or through assembler.

  If there is some example of what you mean, could you show it? I have
no idea what you're talking about, other than in the abstract.
-- 
bill davidsen	(davidsen@crdos1.crd.GE.COM -or- uunet!crdgw1!crdos1!davidsen)
  "I'll come home in one of two ways, the big parade or in a body bag.
   I prefer the former but I'll take the latter" -Sgt Marco Rodrigez