Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!bloom-beacon!apple!rutgers!bellcore!texbell!sugar!peter
From: peter@sugar.uu.net (Peter da Silva)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.tech
Subject: Re: Adjusting the stack pointer
Message-ID: <3153@sugar.uu.net>
Date: 26 Dec 88 16:11:12 GMT
References: <5047@garfield.MUN.EDU> <1667@fbog.UUCP> <3142@sugar.uu.net> <10121@well.UUCP>
Distribution: na
Organization: Sugar Land Unix - Houston, TX
Lines: 27

In article <10121@well.UUCP>, ewhac@well.UUCP (Leo L. Schwab) writes:
> In article <3142@sugar.uu.net> peter@sugar.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes:
> :The only 8-bitter that I know of with a regular
> :instruction set is the 1802 (the 6809, too, but you demean that by calling
> :it an 8-bit CPU).

> 	How do you feel about the National Semiconductor 32000 series units?

Well, it's not exactly an 8-bitter :->.

I kind of dismissed the 32000 architecture, because it didn't have an
autoincrement indirect adressing mode, which doubles the cost of doing an
indirect-threaded language like Forth. At the time Forth was my bag. The
best Forth machine, BTW, is the PDP-11 or the 6809 (two instructions each for
the FIG-model inner interpreter) followed by the 68000 (three instructions)
and the 1802 (six instructions, but only 1 byte each). (waffles on at length
about Forth, details on request).

No, I haven't looked at it recently. I really can't say much about it.

> I've heard they're pretty clean.  I've also heard differing opinions about
> the Acorn RISC Machine (ARM) chip?  Any thoughts?

I'd say any RISC had damn well better be orthogonal. Otherwise it's a bit of a
risk calling it one.
-- 
Peter "Have you hugged your wolf today" da Silva  `-_-'  peter@sugar.uu.net