From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: fac41,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gidfac41,public X-Google-Thread: f43e6,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gidf43e6,public X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: kilgallen@eisner.decus.org (Larry Kilgallen) Subject: Re: Assembler most efficient??? (was Re: What is wrong with OO ?) Date: 1997/01/11 Message-ID: <1997Jan11.153628.1@eisner>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 209214390 x-nntp-posting-host: eisner.decus.org references: <5a0niaINNlda@topdog.cs.umbc.edu> <32C43AC8.24E2@sn.no> <32C557F6.532C@rase.com> <5aa0eo$thd@krusty.irvine.com> <5aadbr$ad8@masters0.InterNex.Net> <32D64433.41C6@wi.leidenuniv.nl> <32D6C18B.30A8@calfp.com> x-nntp-posting-user: KILGALLEN x-trace: 853014994/15171 organization: LJK Software newsgroups: comp.lang.eiffel,comp.lang.ada,comp.object,comp.software-eng Date: 1997-01-11T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article , dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) writes: > Do you really have evidence of this? What machines are you talking about? > I know quite a bit about the design of the common processor chips around, > and I really cannot think of one case where the scenario you present above > rings true. On the contrary, for example, the design of the MIPS chip was > done with input from compiler considerations all along the way. In some > sense the whole business of pipelined RISC architecture is intimately > wound up with compiler considerations. Compared to the operating system groups, the DEC compiler groups had as much if not more input to the designers of the Alpha chips. Larry Kilgallen