Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!cs.utexas.edu!oakhill!davet
From: davet@oakhill.UUCP (David Trissel)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.m68k
Subject: Re: addq.w #n,sp and a pop quiz
Keywords: C asm addq
Message-ID: <1749@oakhill.UUCP>
Date: 21 Dec 88 05:46:24 GMT
References: <5005@bsu-cs.UUCP> <5460@cbmvax.UUCP> <1100@ncar.ucar.edu> <1737@oakhill.UUCP> <1324@X.UUCP>
Reply-To: davet@oakhill.UUCP (David Trissel)
Distribution: na
Organization: Motorola Inc., Austin Tx.
Lines: 17

In article <1324@X.UUCP> john@frog.UUCP (John Woods) writes:

>The answer to such silliness seems to be RISC.

Huh? The "leave it to the software" philosophy? No thanks. I happen to know
people trying to "work around" some tough RISC hangups and I have to say that
if RISC compilers are easier to build than CISC compilers it's not 
by much.

Certainly by now the RISC compilers would all be "finished" wouldn't they?
Since the initial implementation would be a breeze all that's left to do
is work on optimizing.

Looks to me like both RISC and CISC have a nearly equal amount of
implementation headaches.

 -- Dave Trissel