Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!clyde!mcdchg!chinet!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!cwjcc!hal!nic.MR.NET!tank!uxc!uxc.cso.uiuc.edu!urbsdc!aglew
From: aglew@urbsdc.Urbana.Gould.COM
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: RISC v. CISC (really comments o
Message-ID: <28200220@urbsdc>
Date: 29 Oct 88 20:43:00 GMT
References: <2042@ficc.uu.net>
Lines: 8
Nf-ID: #R:ficc.uu.net:2042:urbsdc:28200220:000:296
Nf-From: urbsdc.Urbana.Gould.COM!aglew    Oct 29 15:43:00 1988


> Umm, if indexing is "pretty CISCy", then just about every machine out
> there is a CISC, which makes "CISCy" pretty much uninteresting as an
> adjective, unless you can show an interesting machine that lacks
> indexing.

How about the AMD 29000?  I'm sure that Brian Case will comment
on this.