Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84 +MMDF+2.11; site ukc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!petrus!bellcore!decvax!decwrl!pyramid!ut-sally!seismo!mcvax!ukc!rde
From: rde@ukc.UUCP (R.D.Eager)
Newsgroups: net.micro
Subject: Re: 386 Family Products
Message-ID: <498@ukc.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 15-Dec-85 19:23:42 EST
Article-I.D.: ukc.498
Posted: Sun Dec 15 19:23:42 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 18-Dec-85 05:02:26 EST
References: <129@intelca> <4400130@uiucdcsb> <6185@utzoo.UUCP> <433@ecn-pc.UUCP> <132@ism780c.UUCP>
Reply-To: rde@ukc.UUCP (R.D.Eager)
Organization: U of Kent at Canterbury, Canterbury, UK
Lines: 34


> ...the 80386 still has too few registers....

Oh yeah? What's so great about lots of registers? You're better off with
a  nice  simple  design  (no  bits wasted in each instruction to specify
which register) and a good fast cache. A cache is after  all  a  dynamic
equivalent  to the attempts (often bad ones) at register optimisation by
compilers.

Let's keep to machines with ONE general purpose  register,  with  a  few
extra  ones for specific purposes. All these gripes about 80*6 registers
are completely out to lunch. The 8086 has:

     AX - a general purpose, cheap to use register
     DX - an extension to AX
     CX - a counter
     BX - an index register
     SP - a stack front register
     BP - a stack frame pointer
     SI,DI- base registers for off stack data

Let's stop moaning about the lack  of  general  purpose  registers...who
needs them? Keep the compiler writer's job easy...

I  am  not  trying to enter a segmentation discussion; that's a separate
issue!
-- 
           Bob Eager

           rde@ukc.UUCP
           rde@ukc
           ...!mcvax!ukc!rde

           Phone: +44 227 66822 ext 7589