Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!bloom-beacon!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mailrus!ames!pasteur!ucbvax!decwrl!hplabs!hp-pcd!uoregon!markv From: markv@uoregon.uoregon.edu (Mark VandeWettering) Newsgroups: comp.arch Subject: Re: Survey of architectures was (Re Message-ID: <1941@uoregon.uoregon.edu> Date: 7 May 88 07:56:15 GMT References: <95544@<1988Apr22> <76700022@uiucdcsp> Reply-To: markv@drizzle.UUCP (Mark VandeWettering) Organization: University of Oregon, Computer Science, Eugene OR Lines: 40 In article <76700022@uiucdcsp> gillies@uiucdcsp.cs.uiuc.edu writes: >>>Intel 432: The ultimate CISC == Horrible failure. >>(as I climb back on one of my soapboxes...) >>You must mean a failure in the commercial marketplace. So what? Are >>you attributing that failure to its CISC nature? If so, I contend >>you are wrong, and if not, then what's your point? The 432 was a commercial flop, but it is one chip from intel that I at least thought was innovative. Maybe it was a little ahead of its time. >>Bob Colwell mfci!colwell@uunet.uucp >It is a fact of history that the chip was a commercial failure. If, >as you assert, its architecture was not a failure, then by all means >name one architecture that was influenced (in a POSITIVE way) by the >Intel 432. One architecture? I suppose it has to be a commercial sucess as well? Give me a break. A few of the things I found interesting were 1. Capability based 2. Merging of OS primitives into machine 3. Hardware garbage collection 4. Attempt to bridge "semantic gap" between Ada and machines While the 432 wasn't successful in addressing these problems (too slow mostly) I think that future chips may be based upon similar ideas. Whether they will be "successful" we shall see. RISC ideas are pretty convincing, but I am not tossing CISC chips out the window yet. >Don Gillies {ihnp4!uiucdcs!gillies} U of Illinois > {gillies@p.cs.uiuc.edu} mark vandewettering