Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!mfci!root
From: root@mfci.UUCP (SuperUser)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: 16 & 32 bit vs 32 bit only instructions for RISC.
Message-ID: <295@m2.mfci.UUCP>
Date: 28 Feb 88 17:03:05 GMT
References: <9651@steinmetz.steinmetz.UUCP> <9678@steinmetz.steinmetz.UUCP> <2574@im4u.UUCP> <929@mtund.ATT.COM>
Reply-To: mfci!colwell@uunet.UUCP (Robert Colwell)
Organization: Multiflow Computer Inc., Branford Ct. 06405
Lines: 21
Keywords: CRISP

....
>frequently ).  The thing that impressed me the most was it didn't take
>a killer optimizing compiler ( read big, buggy and slow ) to make the
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>machine run fast.  It seems for stack based langauges a stack cache is
>
>Barry Books
>mtund!bfb		better is bigger

I disagree with this attitude.  If you want to run fast, you pay the
price.  Whatever performance you got out of whatever compiler you had,
if it wasn't doing a good job at optimizing, then you could have gotten
more.  If you let that extra performance dribble away, you may have
your reasons, but it's likely that your competitors won't, so you may
not be able to keep doing it for long.  And anyway, "killer optimizing
compilers" don't have to be buggy.  Did you have some example in mind?

Bob Colwell            mfci!colwell@uunet.uucp
Multiflow Computer
175 N. Main St.
Branford, CT 06405     203-488-6090