Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!dali.cs.montana.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!sdd.hp.com!wuarchive!uunet!stanford.edu!agate!cork.Berkeley.EDU!maverick
From: maverick@cork.Berkeley.EDU (Vance Maverick)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: RISC vs. CISC -- SPECmarks
Message-ID: <1991May7.191501.5153@agate.berkeley.edu>
Date: 7 May 91 19:15:01 GMT
References: <3423@charon.cwi.nl> <11602@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> <820@cadlab.sublink.ORG> <11996@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>
Sender: root@agate.berkeley.edu (Charlie Root)
Reply-To: maverick@cork.Berkeley.EDU (Vance Maverick)
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Lines: 11

In article <11996@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>, hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) writes:
|> In article <820@cadlab.sublink.ORG>, martelli@cadlab.sublink.ORG (Alex Martelli) writes:
|> > Yes, I do agree with that - which speaks well for Dan Bernstein's idea
|> > of having a language construct to say to the compiler: here are 2/3/N
|> > different implementations of the SAME programming semantics, now please 
|> > choose the one that's fastest on THIS machine!
|> 
|> Now how do we get the idea across to the computer people?  One does not
|> need something as complicated as matrix multiply, vector add is enough.

Dain Samples, of the CS Division here, soon of the University of Cincinnati, did just this work for his thesis.  I can hunt up a reference for you if you like, or you might try asking Dain (samples@cs.berkeley.edu).