Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!ames!oliveb!sun!pope@vatican
From: pope@vatican (John Pope)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: RISC bashing at USENIX
Message-ID: <59977@sun.uucp>
Date: 14 Jul 88 22:09:07 GMT
References: <6965@ico.ISC.COM> <936@garth.UUCP> <202@baka.stan.UUCP> <59798@sun.uucp> <204@baka.stan.UUCP>
Sender: news@sun.uucp
Reply-To: pope@vatican (John Pope)
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Lines: 22
In-reply-to: landru@stan.UUCP (Mike Rosenlof)

In article <204@baka.stan.UUCP>, landru@stan (Mike Rosenlof) writes:

>Last time I looked, 'long' on the sun C compilers was 32 bits, and this
>example still holds. If the library function is optimized C or hand
>coded assembler, the machine code is going to come up nearly identical
>to my examples. (assembler for 68020 and SPARC not quoted here)

I again apologize for my case of caffeine induced type-ahead. I'd seen
a couple of cases just lately where the char copy loop had been written
in this way (not even using register variables, yet) and went overboard.
My point was not to defend our machine (really), but to say that rewriting
of standard functions can often lead to performance loss regardless of
machine or architecture.

>Mike Rosenlof		SAE			(303)447-2861
>2190 Miller Drive			stan!landru@boulder.edu
>Longmont Colorado			landru@stan.uucp
>80501					...hao!boulder!stan!landru
-- 
-- 
John Pope
	Sun Microsystems, Inc. 
		pope@sun.COM