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=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,
	REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,5a97e6705e234408
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-09-20 04:29:43 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!newsfeed.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!130.133.1.3!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!62.154.176.138!not-for-mail
From: Steffen Huber <steffen.huber@gmx.de>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Expected bytes per sloc (semicolons) performance
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2001 13:28:57 +0200
Organization: private
Message-ID: <3BA9D2F9.AEAC7E33@gmx.de>
References: <8f23da36.0109181403.52128d70@posting.google.com>
 <_hRp7.7630$ot.1153235@typhoon.ne.mediaone.net>
 <5ee5b646.0109190213.1092dc91@posting.google.com>
 <3BA93BB1.3685D423@intercom.com>
Reply-To: steffen.huber@gmx.de
NNTP-Posting-Host: 62.154.176.138
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 1000985381 13431586 62.154.176.138 (16 [82308])
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [de] (WinNT; I)
X-Accept-Language: de
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:13204
Date: 2001-09-20T13:28:57+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"David B. Littell" wrote:
> Robert Dewar wrote:
> > "Jeff Creem" <jeff@thecreems.com> wrote:
> > > As for RISC/CISC.... One sometimes ends up with slightly larger code on a
> > > RISC than
> > > CISC machine but this probably has almost as much to do with mandatory nops,
> > >  missed delayed branch opportunities and alignment requirements as it does
> > > with
> > > the straight RISC/CISC issues.
> >
> > This is a misleading assessment. First of all most modern
> > RISC machines do not have mandatory nops etc, so you are
> > really talking about old style architectures here.
> >
> 
> Both MIPS (including MIPS32) and ARM processors provide a branch delay
> slot which may or may not be useful to the compiler.

I don't know much about the MIPS architecture, but are you sure about the
ARM? AFAIK, there is no such thing as a branch delay slot. Branches are
(after flushing the pipeline of course) taken directly.

[snip]
> I guess I'm not sure what a "modern" RISC is - each of the "big three"
> (MIPS, ARM, PowerPC) is haunted by legacy grodiness.

Oh come on. The ARM is surely the cleanest commercially available
processor architecture - at least until they added the THUMB extensions...

[snip]

Steffen

-- 
steffen.huber@gmx.de               steffen@huber-net.de
GCC for RISC OS  - http://www.arcsite.de/hp/gcc/
Private homepage - http://www.huber-net.de/