🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <28664@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> jas@ernie.Berkeley.EDU (Jim Shankland) writes:
>The cases for faulting on unaligned instructions and data accesses
>(e.g., MIPS, 68010, et al.) rather than dealing with them correctly
>in hardware (e.g., VAX) is stronger than the case for silently
>forcing the 1 or 2 LSB's to 0, as the RT/PC does.  Sure, correct
>programs will run correctly; but correct programs of any respectable
>size are almost unheard of.  Consider the following reductio ad
>absurdum:
.
.
.
>Jim Shankland
>jas@ernie.berkeley.edu
>
>"Blame it on the lies that killed us, blame it on the truth that ran us down"


Also, consider the problem in the other direction:  Some programs may work
correctly on the RT because the RT silently zeros several bytes.  This program
will not, of course, work on a "non-braindamaged" machine.  On the other hand,
the RT's doing this is in sync with the general large-company philosphy of
getting you "locked into using our machine forever otherwise your gonna pay a
lot of money for new software."

"That's not a bug; it's a feature!"