Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!usc!rpi!uupsi!ficc!peter
From: peter@ficc.ferranti.com (peter da silva)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: RISC vs. CISC -- SPECmarks
Message-ID: <0G5B813@xds13.ferranti.com>
Date: 8 May 91 12:04:55 GMT
References: <3423@charon.cwi.nl> <11602@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> <11996@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>
Organization: Ferranti International Controls Corporation
Lines: 21

In article <11996@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>, hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) writes:
> The idea that there is a good language, and all the information the user
> needs to supply to the compiler is made available by machine-independent
> programming in that language, is what is debilitating.

The idea that such an idea exists is an illusion.

> Even more than inlining is making intrinsic.  This is effectively doing
> a macro expansion of the instruction into machine primitives, with the
> full capabilities of register assignment, etc., so that full optimization
> can be carried out.

You mean like in G++? I admit that C++ isn't the best of all possible
languages, but the combination of inlining, operator definitions, and
GCCs inline assembler (which appears to allow register reassignment)
is pretty close to what you want.

Just don't copy Stroustrup's coding style.
-- 
Peter da Silva.  `-_-'  peter@ferranti.com
+1 713 274 5180.  'U`  "Have you hugged your wolf today?"