Path: utzoo!yunexus!geac!syntron!jtsv16!uunet!seismo!sundc!pitstop!sun!decwrl!pyramid!oracle!hqpyr1!csimmons
From: csimmons@hqpyr1.oracle.UUCP (Charles Simmons)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: RISC v. CISC (was The NeXT problem)
Message-ID: <469@oracle.UUCP>
Date: 26 Oct 88 08:41:05 GMT
Article-I.D.: oracle.469
References: <156@gloom.UUCP> <310@lynx.zyx.SE> <332@pvab.UUCP> <15964@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> <23367@amdcad.AMD.COM> <16003@agate.BERKELEY.EDU>
Sender: news@oracle.uucp
Reply-To: csimmons@oracle.UUCP (Charles Simmons)
Organization: Oracle Corporation, Belmont CA
Lines: 19

In article <16003@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> matloff@iris.ucdavis.edu (Norm Matloff) writes:
>But the point is, and you seem to agree, that the often-voiced (and
>recently brought up in comp.arch) claim that context switches would
>make multiple-window-register-file-based RISC's unsuitable for
>timeshare applications is just simply not borne out by the data.
>
>  Norm

If I remember the arguments from MIPS correctly (want to help me out
John?), there's a stronger objection to multiple-window-register-files.
I think it's something to the effect that register-windows cause the
load/store access time to be slower.  I think there also may be some
argument that a good compiler makes multiple-windows relatively
unnecessary.

Could one of you nice people address something like the above and
help me clarify my thinking?

-- Thanks, Chuck