Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!sri-unix!sri-spam!ames!amdcad!amdahl!chuck
From: chuck@amdahl.amdahl.com (Charles Simmons)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c,comp.arch
Subject: Re: Was the 360 badly-designed?  (was Re: Compatibility with EBCDIC)
Message-ID: <12719@amdahl.amdahl.com>
Date: Sun, 23-Aug-87 02:18:17 EDT
Article-I.D.: amdahl.12719
Posted: Sun Aug 23 02:18:17 1987
Date-Received: Sun, 23-Aug-87 22:20:46 EDT
References: <855@tjalk.cs.vu.nl> <2683@hoptoad.uucp>
Reply-To: chuck@amdahl.amdahl.com (Charles Simmons)
Organization: Amdahl Corp, Sunnyvale CA
Lines: 20
Xref: mnetor comp.lang.c:3852 comp.arch:1877

In article <1035@bsu-cs.UUCP> dhesi@bsu-cs.UUCP (Rahul Dhesi) writes:
>In article <1580@sol.ARPA> crowl@cs.rochester.edu (Lawrence Crowl) writes:
>>. . .one needs VERY good arguments to claim that the 360
>>architecture was badly-designed.
>
>No stack, small segments, nonstandard character set with holes.
>-- 
>Rahul Dhesi         UUCP:  {ihnp4,seismo}!{iuvax,pur-ee}!bsu-cs!dhesi

What do you mean by "no stack"?  Our C compiler uses a stack on our
370 architechture.  Are you complaining that auto-increment/auto-decrement
addressing modes weren't implemented?  Do current RISC chips use these
addressing modes?

What does the character set that tends to be used with an architechture
have to do with the architechture?  I don't think we have any problems
using ascii with our architechture...

-- Chuck
amdahl!chuck