Newsgroups: comp.arch
Path: utzoo!henry
From: henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: 680x0 instructions (was: '040 vs SPARC)
Message-ID: <1990Feb13.181631.19030@utzoo.uucp>
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
References: <645@ssp11.idca.tds.philips.nl> <38554@apple.Apple.COM> <616@bbxsda.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 90 18:16:31 GMT

In article <616@bbxsda.UUCP> scott@bbxsda.UUCP (Scott Amspoker) writes:
>>>68020 double-indirect-with-offset addressing mode is a real life saver [...]
>>A very waterlogged lifesaver. It is not clear that the fancy addressing
>>modes run faster than a sequence of simpler insts...
>Agreed.  However, it think the debate was whether or not C compilers
>actually use those fancy addressing modes.  The answer is, yes.

The debate was about whether the fancy modes are worthwhile.  It is not
enough to show that compilers can use them; it is necessary that there be
some good reason to use them.  If performance is worse, there isn't.
-- 
"The N in NFS stands for Not, |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
or Need, or perhaps Nightmare"| uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu