Article View: comp.arch
Article #118Re: What's wrong with stack machines?
From: Nick Janow
Date: Sun, 01 Nov 1992 02:18
Date: Sun, 01 Nov 1992 02:18
19 lines
1102 bytes
1102 bytes
dafuller@sequent.com (David Fuller) writes: > Tandem's T16 series of machines were stack machines and in the old days > when their CPUs absorbed boards of logic and were rated in the 1 MIP range, > their ability to context switch meant big advantages in being able to throw > and catch I/Os, certainly far more than most modern RISC machines do per > MIP today. > > But even Tandem has moved on to modern tech (MIPS, hi John!) and feel > pretty good about it. Perhaps the reason was to run non-stack optimized languages more efficiently? If the market required efficient handling of FORTRAN, C, Pascal, etc, they'd need to provide the required registers, or simulate them (with a speed penalty). -- Nick_Janow@mindlink.bc.ca
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<17034@mindlink.bc.ca>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!spool.mu.edu!agate!rsoft!mindlink!a684Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Newsgroups: comp.arch Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!spool.mu.edu!agate!rsoft!mindlink!a684 From: Nick_Janow@mindlink.bc.ca (Nick Janow) Subject: Re: What's wrong with stack machines? Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada Date: Sun, 1 Nov 1992 02:18:07 GMT Message-ID: <17034@mindlink.bc.ca> Sender: news@deep.rsoft.bc.ca (Usenet) Lines: 19