Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!pasteur!ames!lll-winken!uunet!mcvax!ukc!cam-cl!scc
From: scc@cl.cam.ac.uk (Stephen Crawley)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re:  Re: MicroVAX emulation
Message-ID: <687@scaup.cl.cam.ac.uk>
Date: 20 Mar 89 10:08:15 GMT
References: <807@microsoft.UUCP> <92634@sun.uucp> <13322@steinmetz.ge.com> <1133@auspex.UUCP> <12000@haddock.ima.isc.com> <1368@husc6.harvard.edu> <679@scaup.cl.cam.ac.uk> <12035@haddock.ima.isc.com>
Sender: news@cl.cam.ac.uk
Organization: U of Cambridge Comp Lab, UK
Lines: 49

> > OK ... so you take a performance hit on an Ultrix uVAX II.  Fine you say.
> Wait a minute.  I never said that taking a performance hit would be OK.

Excuse me, but I didn't mean to imply that you (Stephen Uitti) would say
that.  I thought I was expressing myself clearly, but perhaps I should 
have said "Fine I hear you say".

> Similar things happen with floating point [example about 68000's & 68881's 
> & Lightspeed C deleted for brevity]

The example is not applicable for 2 reasons.

1)	The "68000 architecture" does not include FP instructions.  The
	"VAX architecture" DOES include the string instructions.

2)	You are talking about 68000 compilers that have a compile time
	option for generating instructions for a 68881.  The MIT CLU
	compiler has NO SUCH OPTION.
	
> Amoeba doesn't "really support" the uVAX II.

Strictly speaking that's true.  However, none of the software CWI supplies
minds the missing emulation code, and the C compilers in question doesn't
generate them. 

> Maybe the Amoeba people can get support code from Mt Xinu.

Or DEC, or Berkeley.  Last time I talked to them about this, the CWI folk 
didn't want to get into all the legal hassle.  I quite understand their
position on this.

> > Contentious statement:
> >  Until DEC is prepared to supply free and unencumbered source code
> >  for the instruction emulation routines, the uVAX II cannot be said
> >  to implement the VAX architecture!

> Pretty soon we'll all be working for the Free Software Foundation.

Huh?  Now your putting words into MY mouth!

I've no problems with people paying money for software that they need.  
I'm objecting to people being **obliged** to fork out a few thousand quid 
for a software license that is going to be 99.8% useless.

[The following is for your benefit Stephen Uitti since you do not 
 seem to understand what #include "dislaimer.equ" means.]

The views expressed above are my own, and do not represent the
official position of the Cambridge University Computer Laboratory.