Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!lll-winken!uunet!pdn!rnms1!alan
From: alan@rnms1.paradyne.com (Alan Lovejoy)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: Complex Instructions
Message-ID: <5965@pdn.paradyne.com>
Date: 20 Apr 89 15:57:03 GMT
References: <807@microsoft.UUCP< <92634@sun.uucp> <13322@steinmetz.ge.com> <573@loligo.cc.fsu.edu> <5064@hubcap.clemson.edu> <3169@bd.sei.cmu.edu> <38629@bbn.COM> <17167@cup.portal.com> <1003@quintus.UUCP> <17296@cup.portal.com> <1011@quintus.UUCP> <17363@cup.portal.
Sender: news@pdn.paradyne.com
Reply-To: alan@rnms1.paradyne.com (Alan Lovejoy)
Organization: AT&T Paradyne, Largo, Florida
Lines: 18

In article <17363@cup.portal.com< bcase@cup.portal.com (Brian bcase Case) writes:
<>On the subject of calling conventions, I just had my first look at a
<>68030 manual.  I know, I'm way behind the times, but it was supposed to
<>be just more of the same.  Why did Motorola delete CALLM?
<
<Did they really do this?  Maybe it is because the PMMU subset on the 030
<can't support the protection semantics, but I'm not sure about that.  Maybe
<it's because nobody used the instruction.  :-) :-)

I heard that they checked, and nobody was using the instruction.  I don't  
remember now what the motivation for dropping CALLM was, other than lack
of use.  That seems like sufficient justification in itself.


Alan Lovejoy; alan@pdn; 813-530-2211; AT&T Paradyne: 8550 Ulmerton, Largo, FL.
Disclaimer: I do not speak for AT&T Paradyne.  They do not speak for me. 
_________________________Design Flaws Travel In Herds_________________________
Motto: If nanomachines will be able to reconstruct you, YOU AREN'T DEAD YET.