Xref: utzoo comp.arch:8070 comp.misc:4854 comp.lang.misc:2648 comp.protocols.misc:484
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ames!pasteur!ucbvax!decwrl!sun!pitstop!sundc!seismo!uunet!kddlab!titcca!sragwa!wsgw!socslgw!diamond
From: diamond@csl.sony.JUNET (Norman Diamond)
Newsgroups: comp.arch,comp.misc,comp.lang.misc,comp.protocols.misc
Subject: Re: When is RISC not RISC?
Message-ID: <10030@diamond.csl.sony.JUNET>
Date: 31 Jan 89 08:25:05 GMT
References: <170@microsoft.UUCP> <4008@hubcap.UUCP> <747@atanasoff.cs.iastate.edu>
Followup-To: comp.arch
Organization: Sony Computer Science Laboratory Inc., Tokyo, Japan
Lines: 23

In article <747@atanasoff.cs.iastate.edu>, hascall@atanasoff.cs.iastate.edu (John Hascall) writes:

> > Sigh, RISC doesn't mean a small number of instructions.  RISC means....

>    REDUCED Instruction Set Computer (i.e., a reduced number of instructions)

Maybe reduced number of KINDS of instructions.

If you have an add instruction for a byte and another for a word ...
if you have an add instruction for signed and another for unsigned ...
do you think these are ciscy?

Having an add instruction for a little-endian word and another for a
big-endian word strikes me as a little silly (maybe a big silly :-),
but still riscy.

Incidentally, wouldn't little-beginnian and big-beginnian be more
accurate?
-- 
Norman Diamond, Sony Computer Science Lab (diamond%csl.sony.jp@relay.cs.net)
  The above opinions are my own.   |  Why are programmers criticized for
  If they're also your opinions,   |  re-inventing the wheel, when car
  you're infringing my copyright.  |  manufacturers are praised for it?