Article View: comp.arch
Article #10606Re: Will NeXT survive? Grow with the times?
From: Guy Harris
Date: Sat, 04 May 1991 22:54
Date: Sat, 04 May 1991 22:54
15 lines
1273 bytes
1273 bytes
>However, leading-edge hardware seems hard-pressed to maintain binary >compatibility very far backwards. Examples, please? Yes, MIPS, SPARC, and HP-PA have all introduced additional user-mode-visible features to their architectures, but they haven't, as far as I know, invalidated any *old* stuff (other than blowing off "extended precision" in favor of "quad" floating point in SPARC, or something such as that, but I don't know that anybody was using the "extended precision" stuff, and don't know that anybody'd implemented it in hardware). Or are you thinking of changes that, while they don't require programs to be recompiled in order to run at all, require them to be recompiled in order to get the full performance boost from a new implementation (e.g., different instruction scheduling)?
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<7628@auspex.auspex.com>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!uunet!auspex!guyReferences:
<1991Apr29.144421.19819@oakhill.sps.mot.com> <1991May1.160128.1367@sono.uucp> <8283@uceng.UC.EDU>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!uunet!auspex!guy From: guy@auspex.auspex.com (Guy Harris) Newsgroups: comp.arch Subject: Re: Will NeXT survive? Grow with the times? Message-ID: <7628@auspex.auspex.com> Date: 4 May 91 22:54:56 GMT References: <1991Apr29.144421.19819@oakhill.sps.mot.com> <1991May1.160128.1367@sono.uucp> <8283@uceng.UC.EDU> Organization: Auspex Systems, Santa Clara Lines: 15