home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!munnari.oz.au!ariel.ucs.unimelb.EDU.AU!werple.apana.org.au!news
- From: markd@werple.apana.org.au (Mark Delany)
- Newsgroups: comp.sys.prime
- Subject: Re: X Windows on 50-Series
- Date: 26 Dec 1992 12:28:22 +1100
- Organization: werple public-access unix, Melbourne
- Lines: 37
- Message-ID: <1hgcfmINN496@werple.apana.org.au>
- References: <1h9e2jINNkht@werple.apana.org.au> <1992Dec23.102858@primerd.Prime.COM>
- NNTP-Posting-Host: werple.apana.org.au
-
- j.cook@primerd.prime.com (C. James Cook) writes:
-
- >markd@werple.apana.org.au (Mark Delany) writes:
-
-
- >PLP produced better code than SPL. However, the PLP compiler has bugs and
- >suffers maintainability problems (remember: these products are not supported
- >for customer use). PLP also suffers from symbol table limits. SPL is much
- >more maintainable, has an essentially unlimited symbol table, and has had a
- >lot of work in the optimizer and code generator. (Some day I have to run
- >one last code size comparison).
-
- I vaguely recall that at one stage (and for reasons I don't know) that
- SPL could not be used for ring0 code.
-
- >> On a tangent, you may want to see the old discussions re 64-bit
- >> addressing in comp.arch, one suggestion was that every data bit in the
- >> universe would be potentially visible in one huge address space! The
- >> mind boggles really.
-
- >If you are a 50-series instruction set guru, you will notice the three word
- >pointer format first defined with the P400 in the 70's has the capability to
- >address down to the bit level.
-
- I'm not, but I remember. Practically, I think the subsequent
- overloading of this extension bit as a character address for IX was a
- better choice since prior to this there was no real character
- addressing available.
-
- But I agree that bit addressing is certainly convenient in something
- that happens a lot these days, eg bitmap manipulation.
-
-
- --
- Mark Delany markd@werple.apana.org.au
-
-
-