Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ncar!ames!oliveb!sun!fatcity!khb
From: khb@fatcity.Sun.COM (Keith Bierman Sun Tactical Engineering)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: Bandwidth and RISC vs. CISC
Message-ID: <102027@sun.Eng.Sun.COM>
Date: 1 May 89 03:00:31 GMT
References: <38853@bbn.COM> <423@bnr-fos.UUCP> <17417@cup.portal.com> <38971@bbn.COM> <100524@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> <39049@bbn.COM>
Sender: news@sun.Eng.Sun.COM
Reply-To: khb@sun.UUCP (Keith Bierman Sun Tactical Engineering)
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mountain View
Lines: 16

In article <39049@bbn.COM> slackey@BBN.COM (Stan Lackey) writes:
>In article <100524@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> dgh%dgh@Sun.COM (David Hough) writes:
>>In article <38971@bbn.COM>, slackey@bbn.com (Stan Lackey) writes:
>>> 
>>> I have a real problem with anything that includes IEEE floating point
>>> AND calls itself a RISC.  IEEE FP violates every rule of RISC; it has
............. deleted

>I agree - I was just quoting the RISC guys.

Which RISC guys ? Note dgh's (and my) corporate affiliation ... :>:>

Keith H. Bierman      |*My thoughts are my own. Only my work belongs to Sun*
It's Not My Fault     |	Marketing Technical Specialist 
I Voted for Bill &    |   Languages and Performance Tools. 
Opus            (* strange as it may seem, I do more engineering now     *)