Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mailrus!husc6!endor!walsh
From: walsh@endor.harvard.edu (Bob Walsh)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: RISC v. CISC (really, context-switching & windows)
Message-ID: <528@husc6.harvard.edu>
Date: 28 Oct 88 10:48:54 GMT
References: <156@gloom.UUCP> <310@lynx.zyx.SE> <332@pvab.UUCP> <15964@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> <23367@amdcad.AMD.COM> <16003@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> <6996@winchester.mips.COM> <313@auspex.UUCP> <7187@winchester.mips.COM>
Sender: news@husc6.harvard.edu
Reply-To: walsh@endor.UUCP (Bob Walsh)
Organization: Aiken Computation Lab Harvard, Cambridge, MA
Lines: 9

I know that the TCP/IP in the (BSD derivative) kernel has fewer call
levels than some others (the BBN TCP/IP) because it was felt that
subroutine call overhead was excessive (on the VAX).  Though the
original design decision was not based on a RISC chip, I would not
be surprised if gprof were used on the (RISC) kernel by various
implementors to see where time is spent, with the side effect that
various routines are brought in-line or turned into macros.  It is
the sort of thing done in the privacy of one's office; a product is
not wholely the result of company policy/non-policy.