Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!lll-winken!lll-lcc!ames!pasteur!agate!ig!uwmcsd1!bbn!rochester!PT.CS.CMU.EDU!sei!sei.cmu.edu!firth
From: firth@sei.cmu.edu (Robert Firth)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: RISC is a nasty no-no!
Message-ID: <4400@aw.sei.cmu.edu>
Date: 1 Mar 88 13:57:36 GMT
References: <179@wsccs.UUCP: <696@nuchat.UUCP: <284@scdpyr.UUCP> <25699@linus.UUCP> <11199@duke.cs.duke.edu> <25723@linus.UUCP> <8332@eddie.MIT.EDU>
Sender: netnews@sei.cmu.edu
Reply-To: firth@bd.sei.cmu.edu.UUCP (Robert Firth)
Organization: Carnegie-Mellon University, SEI, Pgh, Pa
Lines: 17

In article <8332@eddie.MIT.EDU> jbs@eddie.MIT.EDU (Jeff Siegal) writes:

>There is nothing language dependant about row vector representation of
>2-d arrays.  It is an implementation tool (i.e. the compiler writer,
>library writer, or software archetecture designer deside such a
>thing).  Once implemented in the system innards, the programmer need
>not be concerned with it...

Jeff, i find this an interesting assertion, and one I'd dearly like
to believe.

However, my reading of ANSI X3.9-1978, especially Section 5, on arrays,
leads me to conclude that array representation in column-major form,
and array access by chain multiplication-&-addition of subscripts, is
the only feasible implementation choice.

If you have a design that does everything right, and allows access by
chained indirection-&-offsetting, then I'd be most interested in seeing it.