Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!cbatt!ihnp4!alberta!edm!steve
From: steve@edm.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: Japanese 32-bit CPUs ( NEC V70 ) [really CISC]
Message-ID: <155@edm.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 15-May-87 09:16:18 EDT
Article-I.D.: edm.155
Posted: Fri May 15 09:16:18 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 16-May-87 21:41:45 EDT
References: <754@apple.UUCP>
Organization: Unexsys Systems Inc., Edmonton,AB.
Lines: 18
Summary: code size may not be the factor

In article <754@apple.UUCP>, baum@apple.UUCP (Allen J. Baum) writes:
> --------
> []
> >....  Since RISC programs will tend to be substantially
> >larger than CISC programs, a RISC system will need more memory than
> >a CISC system.
> the 801 code size was about 20% larger than IBM/370 code. This is
> ... so much for canard that RISC code is huge.
 One thing to consider is that often the DATA space is larger than the I-space.
(this, of course may not apply to the kernel). I don't know just how widespread
this is, but if it is relatively common (I would guess this is especially
common with number-crunching type exploits (where RISC speeds are so useful))
then the expanded code size of RISC may not be all that expensive.

-- 
-------------
 Stephen Samuel 			Disclaimer: You betcha!
  {ihnp4,ubc-vision,seismo!mnetor,vax135}!alberta!edm!steve