Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watnot!watmath!clyde!rutgers!seismo!brl-adm!adm!aglew%mycroft@gswd-vms.arpa
From: aglew%mycroft@gswd-vms.arpa
Newsgroups: comp.unix.wizards
Subject: Re: Complaint about complex architec
Message-ID: <6667@brl-adm.ARPA>
Date: Thu, 2-Apr-87 15:47:23 EST
Article-I.D.: brl-adm.6667
Posted: Thu Apr  2 15:47:23 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 4-Apr-87 16:38:56 EST
Sender: news@brl-adm.ARPA
Lines: 19

>>[bcase @ AMD]:
>> One of the reasons that simple architectures are better for compilers is
>> that (nearly) all instructions take the same amount of time and space.
>> Thus, code generation and optimization are *much* easier.  Also, this
>> relationship of one time unit/one space unit per instruction is unlikely
>> to change as a function of CPU version.

>[scott preece @ Gould]:
>There's no great advantage to simplifying your compiler's job if all
>that means is that it produces equivalently bad performance on all the
>machines in your product line.

Bullshit! There's such a thing as dependable performance. With a
variety of complicated machines in the same family, you really have no
idea of how good the compiler is. If the machines are simple, you can
come much closer to an absolute measure of compiler quality.

Andy "Krazy" Glew. Gould CSD-Urbana.    USEnet:  ihnp4!uiucdcs!ccvaxa!aglew
1101 E. University, Urbana, IL 61801    ARPAnet: aglew@gswd-vms.arpa