Article View: comp.sys.sun
Article #10897RISC versus CISC
From: steve
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 1989 06:03
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 1989 06:03
21 lines
1715 bytes
1715 bytes
There's an interesting paper on the RISC versus CISC controversy in the January 1989 Usenix proceedings. The paper is by Dan Klein of SEI. The basic claim here is that, while CISC architectures have all these fancy instructions that do neat things, compilers (or, at least, C compilers) use these fancy instructions less than 1% of the time. It's the much more fundamental instructions (i.e., 'move what's in this spot in memory into this register') that get used most of the time. The problem here is that it's harder to implement CISC than RISC, and that CISC implementations do the same instructions more slowly than their RISC counterparts. (It takes more silicon and more time to deal with lots of different addressing modes and instructions than it does to deal with a small number of addressing modes and instructions.) The fancy instructions are the ones compilers don't use, and the simple ones are much faster, so the RISC chips are faster overall. (This came as a surprise to Dan Klein, who had set out to prove exactly the opposite.) -Steve Spoken: Steve Miller Domain: steve@mimsy.umd.edu UUCP: uunet!mimsy!steve Phone: +1-301-454-1808 USPS: UMIACS, Univ. of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<8902081338.AA00341@fnord.umiacs.UMD.EDU>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!husc6!rice!sun-spots-requestShow Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!husc6!rice!sun-spots-request From: steve@grinch.umiacs.umd.edu Newsgroups: comp.sys.sun Subject: RISC versus CISC Message-ID: <8902081338.AA00341@fnord.umiacs.UMD.EDU> Date: 14 Feb 89 06:03:52 GMT Sender: usenet@rice.edu Organization: Sun-Spots Lines: 21 Approved: Sun-Spots@rice.edu Original-Date: Wed, 08 Feb 89 08:38:00 -0500 X-Sun-Spots-Digest: Volume 7, Issue 152, message 1 of 9