Re: Compilers and RISC (was: '040 vs. SPARC)

dgb@cs.washington.edu (David Bradlee)
12 Feb 90 20:00:09 GMT

          From comp.compilers
Related articles
Compilers and RISC (was: '040 vs. SPARC) Moss@cs.umass.edu (1990-02-09)
Re: Compilers and RISC (was: '040 vs. SPARC) pardo@cs.washington.edu (1990-02-09)
Re: Compilers and RISC (was: '040 vs. SPARC) dgb@cs.washington.edu (1990-02-10)
Re: Compilers and RISC (was: '040 vs. SPARC) pardo@june.cs.washington.edu (1990-02-11)
Re: Compilers and RISC (was: '040 vs. SPARC) colwell@multiflow.com (1990-02-12)
Re: Compilers and RISC (was: '040 vs. SPARC) dgb@cs.washington.edu (1990-02-12)
Re: Compilers and RISC (was: '040 vs. SPARC) glass@qtc.uucp (David N. Glass) (1990-02-14)
| List of all articles for this month |
From: dgb@cs.washington.edu (David Bradlee)
Newsgroups: comp.arch,comp.compilers
Summary: PL.8 is great, but...
Date: 12 Feb 90 20:00:09 GMT
References: <8905@portia.Stanford.EDU> <160@zds-ux.UUCP> <1990Feb11.040548.223@esegue.segue.boston.ma.us>
Organization: U of Washington, Computer Science, Seattle

> [Keep in mind that the IBM 801 project, the original RISC work, closely
> involved John Cocke, Fran Allen, and other compiler experts. The PL.8
> compiler that was part of that effort is still a serious contender for
> world's best optimizing compiler. ...


The PL.8 compiler project was certainly a valuable effort. The
register allocation strategy, in particular has been widely used in
various forms. However, very little has been published concerning
instruction scheduling issues in the PL.8 project. If anyone knows of
papers discussing scheduling issues for a PL.8 target to a machine
with multiple functional units and floating point (e.g. Motorola
88000), I would certainly be interested in hearing about it.


Dave Bradlee
Department of Computer Science and Engineering, FR-35
University of Washington
Seattle, WA 98195
dgb@cs.washington.edu




Post a followup to this message

Return to the comp.compilers page.
Search the comp.compilers archives again.