Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!lll-winken!lll-lcc!pyramid!voder!apple!bcase
From: bcase@Apple.COM (Brian Case)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: RISC is a nasty no-no!
Message-ID: <7507@apple.Apple.Com>
Date: 29 Feb 88 19:44:59 GMT
References: <179@wsccs.UUCP> <3530@killer.UUCP>
Reply-To: bcase@apple.UUCP (Brian Case)
Organization: Ungermann-Bass Enterprises
Lines: 12

In article <3530@killer.UUCP> elg@killer.UUCP (Eric Green) writes:
>I've used a Pyramid 90x and an IBM RT. I've read papers on the AMD29000 and
>the MIPSco chip. I see no inherent reason for portable programs to not run on
>any of them, except possibly the 29000 (which lacks byte addressing in its
>native rendition).

Wait a minute, I beg to differ with "lacks byte addressing in its native
rendition."  There are byte and halfword (16-bit) insert and extract
operations.  These give you everything you need (yes, yes, I know with
argueable efficiency).  Now, if you meant arbitrary byte *alignment,*
then yeah, but the 29K isn't unique there.  Note that the Pyramid machines
are little endian (aren't they?).  This helps non-portable code become
portable.