Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mailrus!nrl-cmf!ames!amdahl!oliveb!sun!chiba!khb
From: khb%chiba@Sun.COM (Keith Bierman - Sun Tactical Engineering)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: A simple question on RISC
Message-ID: <78305@sun.uucp>
Date: 18 Nov 88 10:45:02 GMT
References: <6544@xanth.cs.odu.edu> <75577@sun.uucp> <1618@imagine.PAWL.RPI.EDU> <419@augean.OZ> <392@ksr.UUCP> <7723@aw.sei.cmu.edu> <464@auspex.UUCP>
Sender: news@sun.uucp
Reply-To: khb@sun.UUCP (Keith Bierman - Sun Tactical Engineering)
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mountain View
Lines: 34

In article <464@auspex.UUCP> guy@auspex.UUCP (Guy Harris) writes:
>>As an aside, the instruction doesn't even work.  It implements an add,
>>compare and branch at the bottom of the loop.  The only language that
>>defines a FOR loop that is always executed at least once is Fortran,

No!
>
>It's interesting to note that Fortran 66 didn't, as I remember,
>explicitly say that DO-loops were one-trip; 

Right!

they just all happened to be
>implemented that way.

Not all. Which is why ...

  Fortran 77 explicitly said that they were
>*zero*-trip;

i.e. since there was NOT universal implementation of 1 trip do loops,
we should pick the sensible meaning.


 I seem to remember somebody from DEC arguing that they
>should be one-trip, but fortunately the F77 committee didn't listen to
>him.... 

Since 1 trip is what DEC did, the argument was probably powerful...to
DEC :>


Keith H. Bierman
It's Not My Fault ---- I Voted for Bill & Opus