Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!mcvax!ukc!dcl-cs!aber-cs!pcg
From: pcg@aber-cs.UUCP (Piercarlo Grandi)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: Register usage [was Re: 80486 vs. 68040 code size]
Summary: Tim Olson, not John Mashey
Message-ID: <960@aber-cs.UUCP>
Date: 18 May 89 13:15:16 GMT
Reply-To: pcg@cs.aber.ac.uk (Piercarlo Grandi)
Distribution: eunet,world
Organization: Dept of CS, UCW Aberystwyth
	(Disclaimer: my statements are purely personal)
Lines: 46

In article <959@aber-cs.UUCP> pcg@cs.aber.ac.uk (Piercarlo Grandi) writes:
   
    	I cannot resist also apologizing, in a different vein :-), to John
    	Mashey for his opinion that I may not be aware of what has happened
    	in the latest 15-20 years in compiler research, and for later stating
    	that I spout falsehoods (numbers, please...);

I have to apologize, more seriously, for the latter assertion. It was Tim
Olson, not John Mashey (sorry for the latter:

    From: tim@crackle.amd.com (Tim Olson)
    Message-ID: <25651@amdcad.AMD.COM>

    In article <950@aber-cs.UUCP> pcg@cs.aber.ac.uk (Piercarlo Grandi) writes:
    | there is the little matter of a few FACTs, called CRISP, NOVIX and
    | TRANSPUTER, that seem to be always forgotten (not to mention the 32532,
    | which has the extremely embarassing property of being a simple, well
    | designed, reg-mem CISC that outruns most RISCs around...) by reg-reg
    | and otherwise RISC designs.
    
    You speak of FACTS, then spout FALSEHOODS.  Rather than guessing, why
    don't you really study the performance of the processors you mention as
    compared to current RISC processors.
		^^^^^^^

Probably my memory fails me here, but I seem to remember that in
architectural comparisons you don't compare processors that have been around
for years with processors what have just been released; you compare them at
equivalent levels of technology (we have even been arguing as tohwether the
386 is the technological equivalent of the 68020 or 68030 -- on which I may
have changed my opinion, incidentally, so far, to the '68025' :-]).

As far as I know, *current* RISC processors are not the same as those that
you can find *around* yourself. MIPS are not embarassed because their most
successuful product so far, the R2000, which has been *around* for a while,
is vastly inferior to the R3000, which is their *current* implementation
(Sun may be a bit, but then they are expecting the new vastly improved SPARC
chips from Cypress and Fujitsu to take over...).

I am curious to see if National will want to do a successor to the 532, and
if NOVIX will be able to, and if INMOS will descend on earth and do the
same... :-) (CRISP is a no goer, of course, unfortunately).
-- 
Piercarlo "Peter" Grandi           | ARPA: pcg%cs.aber.ac.uk@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk
Dept of CS, UCW Aberystwyth        | UUCP: ...!mcvax!ukc!aber-cs!pcg
Penglais, Aberystwyth SY23 3BZ, UK | INET: pcg@cs.aber.ac.uk