Path: utzoo!utgpu!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!helios.ee.lbl.gov!nosc!ucsd!rutgers!mit-eddie!killer!pollux!ti-csl!pf@csc.ti.com From: pf@csc.ti.com (Paul Fuqua) Newsgroups: comp.arch Subject: LISPMs not RISC? - Re: CISCy RISC? RISCy CISC? Message-ID: <61665@ti-csl.CSNET> Date: 23 Oct 88 03:35:33 GMT References: <16921@ames.arc.nasa.gov> Sender: news@ti-csl.CSNET Organization: TI Computer Science Center, Dallas, Texas Lines: 37 Date: Friday, October 21, 1988 8:26pm (CDT) From: raymond at pioneer.arc.nasa.gov.arpa (Eric A. Raymond) Subject: LISPMs not RISC? - Re: CISCy RISC? RISCy CISC? Newsgroups: comp.arch This is where TI ends (I believe) and Symbolics goes on (the tags that is). At least that's where the CADR (LMI and TI didn't really vary from this design) left off. Not true. The Explorer 1 (can you say retronym?) has some ability to do type checks in parallel, and the Explorer 2 has even more. My first assignment back in 1984 was to update the arithmetic microcode to use it. LMI may not have varied much (I really don't know), but TI did a little with the 1 and quite a bit with the 2. They also did things like go to larger word sizes (36 & 40) and CDR coding (I don't think CADR had this - might be wrong). CDR-coding did exist in the CADR -- it was a microcode phenomenon, not a hardware one. Note that both RISC and LISPM-chip (read stack machine with tag bits) are vague terms. One CADR paper I have makes the careful distinction between the CADR machine, which is a microprogrammable 32-bit general-purpose processor with some fancy features, and the Lisp machine, which is the engine plus the microcode to run Lisp. The distinction has blurred in later designs, what with the Ivory containing Lisp microcode in ROM and the TI chip having some hardware recognition of macroinstructions. pf Paul Fuqua Texas Instruments Computer Science Center, Dallas, Texas CSNet: pf@csc.ti.com (ARPA too, sometimes) UUCP: {smu, texsun, cs.utexas.edu, im4u, rice}!ti-csl!pf