Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!rice!titan!preston
From: preston@titan.rice.edu (Preston Briggs)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: 64-bit addresses
Message-ID: <5171@brazos.Rice.edu>
Date: 21 Feb 90 17:52:23 GMT
References: <9708@spool.cs.wisc.edu> <20270@cfctech.cfc.com> <11112@encore.Encore.COM> <10795@snow-white.udel.EDU> <2027@osc.COM> <162@gollum.twg.com> <2054@osc.COM>
Sender: root@rice.edu
Organization: Rice University, Houston
Lines: 21

In article <2054@osc.COM> jgk@osc.osc.COM (Joe Keane) writes:
>In article <162@gollum.twg.com> warner@twg.com (Warner Losh) writes:
>>I really don't see how this will solve your problems.  You still need a
>>constant to offset into the constant pool.  It would also make your compilers
>>much harder to produce since they would also have to manage a constant pool.

"Much harder to write" is an overstatement.  A constant pool adds a little 
bit of extra tedium, but it's no big deal.

>I should say that when i wrote the original post i was thinking specifically
>about the ROMP architecture.  After IBM's recent announcements, it looks like
>this will become one of the major architectures of the next couple years.
>There's no reason why it shouldn't, even though their first implementation was
>lame.

The announcement is for a new architecture (America, Rios, 6000, whatever).
It's not the same as the ROMP.  What will happen to the ROMP and RT?
I've heard they're gone.  Does anybody know?

Preston Briggs
preston@titan.rice.edu