Xref: utzoo comp.arch:13870 comp.compilers:791
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!snorkelwacker!spdcc!esegue!compilers-sender
From: dgb@cs.washington.edu (David Bradlee)
Newsgroups: comp.arch,comp.compilers
Subject: Re: Compilers and RISC (was: '040 vs. SPARC)
Summary: PL.8 is great, but...
Message-ID: <1990Feb13.163240.12042@esegue.segue.boston.ma.us>
Date: 13 Feb 90 16:32:40 GMT
References: <8905@portia.Stanford.EDU> <160@zds-ux.UUCP> <1990Feb11.040548.223@esegue.segue.boston.ma.us>
Sender: compilers-sender@esegue.segue.boston.ma.us
Reply-To: dgb@cs.washington.edu (David Bradlee)
Organization: U of Washington, Computer Science, Seattle
Lines: 22
Approved: compilers@esegue.segue.boston.ma.us

> [Keep in mind that the IBM 801 project, the original RISC work, closely
> involved John Cocke, Fran Allen, and other compiler experts.  The PL.8
> compiler that was part of that effort is still a serious contender for
> world's best optimizing compiler.  ...

The PL.8 compiler project was certainly a valuable effort.  The
register allocation strategy, in particular has been widely used in
various forms.  However, very little has been published concerning
instruction scheduling issues in the PL.8 project.  If anyone knows of
papers discussing scheduling issues for a PL.8 target to a machine
with multiple functional units and floating point (e.g. Motorola
88000), I would certainly be interested in hearing about it.

	Dave Bradlee
	Department of Computer Science and Engineering, FR-35
	University of Washington
	Seattle, WA  98195
	dgb@cs.washington.edu
-- 
Send compilers articles to compilers@esegue.segue.boston.ma.us
{spdcc | ima | lotus}!esegue.  Meta-mail to compilers-request@esegue.
Please send responses to the author of the message, not the poster.