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: 103376,d3bcc180a8b0eea4 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 108abf,d3bcc180a8b0eea4 X-Google-Attributes: gid108abf,public From: tmoran@bix.com Subject: Re: [Fwd: F22 completes 11% of its Flight tests] Date: 2000/01/17 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 573662251 References: X-Complaints-To: abuse@pacbell.net X-Trace: nnrp2-w.snfc21.pbi.net 948099127 206.170.24.35 (Mon, 17 Jan 2000 00:52:07 PST) Organization: SBC Internet Services NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2000 00:52:07 PST Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,rec.aviation.military Date: 2000-01-17T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: >Anyone that has ever done any serious programming under multiple platforms >knows exactly what I mean by "extended instruction set". Do you mean the XFC instruction, generating a fault to help implement user-written "instructions"? Did some DEC Ada compiler rely on some such "extended instructions"? Why is that worse than any other compiler on any other machine exploiting particular capabilities of the target hardware?