Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!sharkey!atanasoff!hascall
From: hascall@atanasoff.cs.iastate.edu (John Hascall)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: Comp.arch OR Comp.lang.C?
Message-ID: <786@atanasoff.cs.iastate.edu>
Date: 11 Feb 89 04:24:12 GMT
References: <1357@etive.ed.ac.uk>
Reply-To: hascall@atanasoff.cs.iastate.edu (John Hascall)
Organization: Iowa State U. Computer Science Department, Ames, IA
Lines: 21

In article <1357@etive.ed.ac.uk> sam@lfcs.ed.ac.uk (S. Manoharan) writes:

>I had unsubscribed to comp.lang.c recently. But I find that C is
>still haunting me.  Hmm! :-()

  It is sometimes convenient to have a "common" language to describe
  architectural features.  I can think of worse ones than 'C'.  Does
  anyone still use register transfer language?

  It seems to me that:

	  R1 = ~C | B;

  is as good as:
		 _
	  R1 <-- C v B

  ...and easier to type.


  /* John Hascall */