Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site mmintl.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!linus!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka From: franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) Newsgroups: net.arch Subject: Re: RISC (really on multiplication due to structures) Message-ID: <476@mmintl.UUCP> Date: Tue, 9-Jul-85 13:41:23 EDT Article-I.D.: mmintl.476 Posted: Tue Jul 9 13:41:23 1985 Date-Received: Sun, 14-Jul-85 09:17:15 EDT References: <639@vax2.fluke.UUCP> <2743@nsc.UUCP> Reply-To: franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) Distribution: net Organization: Multimate International, E. Hartford, CT Lines: 17 Summary: In article <149@mips.UUCP> mash@mips.UUCP (John Mashey) writes: (concerning integer multiplies) > the real >question, is how frequent are these cases, really? [Not an answer, but >a question whose answer needs to be known when you're making tradeoffs >in CPU design]. Actually, this still isn't quite the right question. The right question is how common *should* these cases be? By which I mean, assuming good programming techniques. I have seen too many structure definitions and arrays which were padded or shrunk to make the size a power of two. Programmers shouldn't (and shouldn't have to) worry about such things! Analysis of current programming practices reflects the reactions to current (and past) architectures, and tends to propogate mistakes. All right, I will admit that such analysis is better than no analysis at all. But be aware of its limitations.