Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!sco!seanf
From: seanf@sco.COM (Sean Fagan)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.m68k
Subject: Re: 68040 not object code compatible?
Message-ID: <4999@scolex.sco.COM>
Date: 27 Feb 90 22:21:17 GMT
References: <300003@hpclkms.HP.COM> <9816@cbmvax.commodore.com>
Reply-To: seanf@sco.COM (Sean Fagan)
Organization: The Santa Cruz Operation, Inc.
Lines: 25

In article <9816@cbmvax.commodore.com> valentin@cbmvax.cbm.commodore.com (Valentin Pepelea) writes:
>To my understanding, the CALLM and RTM instructions were really meant to be
>operating system intructions only. Can you see any uses for these instructions
>in an application program? I don't.

I don't know how you reached that conclusion.  CALLM and RTM were meant to
be useful to people who like Modula-2 (and 3) and the ilk.  You know,
application level stuff?  (Actually, "user-level" describes it better, I
guess.)

If they were meant to be OS only, they would have been.  Fairly easy to do,
on a 68k.

>I know, I know, the response to that is going to be "we didn't mean to
>include the coprocessor". *sigh*

No, the response is going to be:  "but you wanted it fast, didn't you?"
Assuming the 68050, if it comes to be, has enough transistors, it will
probably have more of the FP instructions (there's only so much you can do
in so much space, you know).

-- 
Sean Eric Fagan  | "Time has little to do with infinity and jelly donuts."
seanf@sco.COM    |    -- Thomas Magnum (Tom Selleck), _Magnum, P.I._
(408) 458-1422   | Any opinions expressed are my own, not my employers'.