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=-0.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_DATE
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,474d28ddf953b3c1
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 1994-12-06 15:32:04 PST
Path: 
 bga.com!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!gatech!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!zip.eecs.umich.edu!panix!cmcl2!thecourier.cims.nyu.edu!thecourier.cims.nyu.edu!nobody
From: dewar@cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Reference Counting (was Re: Searching Method for Incremental
 Garbage Collection)
Date: 6 Dec 1994 09:15:15 -0500
Organization: Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences
Message-ID: <3c1rlj$jr2@gnat.cs.nyu.edu>
References: <D06r8x.JBy@inmet.camb.inmet.com> <hbakerD07221.1C0@netcom.com>
 <1994Dec5.155913.14005@sei.cmu.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: gnat.cs.nyu.edu
Date: 1994-12-06T09:15:15-05:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

CISC instructions like add to memory usually are inefficient, of course in
the context of a CISC machine, they may be no more inefficient than any
other instructions on the machine, but I think you will find that most
machines having add to memory cannot execute this operation any faster
than a modern RISC can get the same effect with a sequence of instructions.