Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watnot!watmath!clyde!rutgers!seismo!brl-adm!adm!preece%mycroft@gswd-vms.arpa
From: preece%mycroft@gswd-vms.arpa
Newsgroups: comp.unix.wizards
Subject: Re: Complaint about complex architec
Message-ID: <6696@brl-adm.ARPA>
Date: Sun, 5-Apr-87 00:38:24 EST
Article-I.D.: brl-adm.6696
Posted: Sun Apr  5 00:38:24 1987
Date-Received: Sun, 5-Apr-87 19:56:17 EST
Sender: news@brl-adm.ARPA
Lines: 38


  prakash@clunker.u:
> Such Language!! I think the most relevant way to deal with the
> disagreement is to come to some common agreement as to the purpose of an
> architecture.  To my mind Andy has missed the head of the nail
> completely and Scott has struck a barely glancing blow:

> 	Is the purpose of an architecture to simplify the design and speed
> up the operation of compilers??? Or perhaps it should speed up (and maybe
> simplify) application programs?
----------
Well, I think that was what I was trying to say.  On the other hand,
the notion that simplifying compiler writing is a way to improve system
performance is not all that silly, either.  Andy (who is about as much
more reasonable than he likes to appear as I am less reasonable than I
like to appear, and whose desk is about sixteen feet from mine, if you
can walk through walls) believes that the way to improve applications
performance is to make it easier for tools to squeeze every ounce out
of the architecture and to make hardware that does what it does as fast
as possible, by avoiding design compromises favoring special
instructions.

I tend to think that complex instructions can, if sufficiently well
designed in advance and sufficiently well used by the compiler, buy
enough extra performance to make the extra compiler writing effort and
the waste in sometimes NOT being able to automatically get out the last
drop worthwhile.

I think each of us can postulate applications that demonstrate our
beliefs and I think that each of us would accept the statement that
compiler technology is not yet strong enough to prove either.  If there
were a clear answer, the debate wouldn't be fun.

-- 
scott preece
gould/csd - urbana
uucp:	ihnp4!uiucdcs!ccvaxa!preece
arpa:	preece@gswd-vms