Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!think!husc6!encore!maxzilla.encore.com
From: soper@maxzilla.encore.com (Pete Soper)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.m88k
Subject: Re: Information wanted on m88000 Risc workstations
Message-ID: <10825@encore.Encore.COM>
Date: 8 Jan 90 22:23:07 GMT
References: <75406@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu>
Sender: news@Encore.COM
Lines: 30

From article <75406@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu>, by manson@sphere.eng.ohio-state.edu (Robert Manson):

> such a beastie would be available commercially. The advantage of doing
> it in the assembler is that then every compiler gets a performance
> boost, and it also benefits any crazed humans that still like/need to
> program in assembly.

  You mean every compiler that generates assembler output. Many do not do
this by default or even at all. 

> 
> I would have to agree that lack of a good optimizing compiler for
> the 88k is a major lack-the big gain in FP code on the 88k is the
> parallelization that can occur.

  Both GNU C and Green Hills C/C++/F77/Pascal are optimizing compilers that
have 88k code generators available. Surely both have to do instruction 
scheduling of some sort to suport the 88k. Perhaps this area needs more 
work? Is the 860 so much faster because of raw performance or does it 
have the same pipeline issues and a compiler that more effectively supports 
them?
  Sort of on this subject, is GNU C the only C compiler shipped with the
DG box, or is it an alternative to Green Hills? Assuming GNU C is "it",
does it play well with Green Hills Fortran, which I'm assuming is still
the official Fortran product? Has DG extended gdb to cover both languages
or is another debugger used with their Fortran product? 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Pete Soper                                             +1 919 481 3730
internet: soper@encore.com     uucp: {bu-cs,decvax,gould}!encore!soper 
Encore Computer Corp, 901 Kildaire Farm Rd, bldg D, Cary, NC 27511 USA