Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!sri-unix!rutgers!iuvax!pur-ee!uiucdcs!uxc.cso.uiuc.edu!uicsrd!turner
From: turner@uicsrd.csrd.uiuc.edu
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: What should be in hardware but isn'
Message-ID: <43700027@uicsrd>
Date: Fri, 2-Oct-87 16:11:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: uicsrd.43700027
Posted: Fri Oct  2 16:11:00 1987
Date-Received: Wed, 7-Oct-87 05:29:00 EDT
References: <581@l.cc.purdue.edu>
Lines: 23
Nf-ID: #R:l.cc.purdue.edu:581:uicsrd:43700027:000:1069
Nf-From: uicsrd.csrd.uiuc.edu!turner    Oct  2 15:11:00 1987


> Written  9:22 pm  Sep 28, 1987 by stachour@umn-cs.UUCP in comp.arch
> 
> I've NEVER seen anyone design compilers for a machine that is only
> being similated, and chose the architecture of the hardware based
> on measurement, and build the machine later. (Well, one exception,
> Multics many years ago, but that design set goals seldom met now.)
> 
> Paul Stachour
> Honeywell SCTC (Stachour@HI-Multics)
> UMinn. Computer Science (stachour at umn-cs.edu)

Here at CSRD we have been designing compilers for Cedar since BEFORE
the machine was ever simulated.  I think that compiler design is
obviously important enough to be done concurrently with architecture
evaluation, anyone else feel differently??
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Steve Turner (on the Si prairie  - UIUC CSRD)

UUCP:	 {ihnp4,seismo,pur-ee,convex}!uiucdcs!uicsrd!turner
ARPANET: turner%uicsrd@a.cs.uiuc.edu           
CSNET:	 turner%uicsrd@uiuc.csnet            *-))    Mutants for
BITNET:	 turner@uicsrd.csrd.uiuc.edu                Nuclear Power  (-%