Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!ll-xn!ames!pioneer!lamaster
From: lamaster@pioneer.arpa (Hugh LaMaster)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: The 360 was a design landmark  (360 vs vax)
Message-ID: <2596@ames.arpa>
Date: Wed, 31-Dec-69 18:59:59 EDT
Article-I.D.: ames.2596
Posted: Wed Dec 31 18:59:59 1969
Date-Received: Fri, 28-Aug-87 06:32:13 EDT
References: <855@tjalk.cs.vu.nl> <2683@hoptoad.uucp> <916@haddock.ISC.COM> <418@astroatc.UUCP> <26444@sun.uucp> <422@astroatc.UUCP> <18088@amdcad.AMD.COM>
Sender: usenet@ames.arpa
Reply-To: lamaster@pioneer.UUCP (Hugh LaMaster)
Organization: NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, Calif.
Lines: 27

In article <18088@amdcad.AMD.COM> tim@amdcad.UUCP (Tim Olson) writes:

>If the VAX instruction-set was designed for "maximum code density", they
>certainly did a poor job.  Many processors (including some "RISCs" --
>IBM ROMP and CRISP) can routinely beat it in code density.

Well, it was designed for high code density at the time. Two points:
1)  Maybe people have learned something in 10 years, and
2)  Be careful to compare oranges and oranges.  I think the code density
produced by the VMS compilers is quite good, and compares favorably with
code produced on other 32 bit architectures with good compilers.  It is
a different test to compare the code produced by pcc, for example.  What
comparisons were you referring to?




  Hugh LaMaster, m/s 233-9,  UUCP {seismo,topaz,lll-crg,ucbvax}!
  NASA Ames Research Center                ames!pioneer!lamaster
  Moffett Field, CA 94035    ARPA lamaster@ames-pioneer.arpa
  Phone:  (415)694-6117      ARPA lamaster@pioneer.arc.nasa.gov


                 "IBM will have it soon"


(Disclaimer: "All opinions solely the author's responsibility")