Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!nuchat!sugar!ficc!peter
From: peter@ficc.UUCP (Peter da Silva)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: Self-modifying code
Message-ID: <1152@ficc.UUCP>
Date: 25 Jul 88 22:04:56 GMT
References: <5254@june.cs.washington.edu> <76700032@p.cs.uiuc.edu> <1988Jul21.202410.20049@utzoo.uucp>
Organization: SCADA
Lines: 21

I suppose that if *all* your emmory is on the same bus as your display
drivers, then this statement is true:

In article ... henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
> I agree that it's possible to break the hardware in such a way that a
> software BitBlt is inherently slow.  I prefer unbroken hardware myself.

On the other hand, at a given speed a 68030 can only go so fast. If you
can let it do other things while another processor is doing the display,
then why not? Then the statement becomes:

  "I agree that it's possible to break the hardware in such a way that a
   hardware BitBlt is inherently slow.  I prefer unbroken hardware myself."

I have always been uncomfortable with the idea of having your main CPU
throwing all those display bits around anyway... hell, given the price
of the 68030 it might pay Sun to stick an extra one in there to unload
*all* of the display management from the main CPU.
-- 
Peter da Silva  `-_-'  Ferranti International Controls Corporation.
"Have you hugged  U  your wolf today? when it was pointed out to them by