From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: tuhs-bounces@minnie.tuhs.org
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on inbox.vuxu.org
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=5.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,
	MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
	version=3.4.2
Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (minnie.tuhs.org [45.79.103.53])
	by inbox.vuxu.org (OpenSMTPD) with ESMTP id 12a52086
	for <ml@inbox.vuxu.org>;
	Tue, 25 Sep 2018 15:02:28 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112)
	id 68AC2A1DDC; Wed, 26 Sep 2018 01:02:27 +1000 (AEST)
Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 41BE594106;
	Wed, 26 Sep 2018 01:01:57 +1000 (AEST)
Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112)
 id 795E49410D; Wed, 26 Sep 2018 01:01:54 +1000 (AEST)
Received: from mcvoy.com (mcvoy.com [192.169.23.250])
 by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7B8B594106
 for <tuhs@minnie.tuhs.org>; Wed, 26 Sep 2018 01:01:53 +1000 (AEST)
Received: by mcvoy.com (Postfix, from userid 3546)
 id BE91935E130; Tue, 25 Sep 2018 08:01:52 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2018 08:01:52 -0700
From: Larry McVoy <lm@mcvoy.com>
To: Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at>
Message-ID: <20180925150152.GJ10989@mcvoy.com>
References: <mailman.98.1535822297.3725.tuhs@minnie.tuhs.org>
 <1686170E-4323-4BDF-B95C-8A6B3FFD5288@gmail.com>
 <CAFCBnZufqk1SmOVdWLK19a0oQ1FjFe7ebDDa+T54yrNo=19eDw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CABH=_VR1KrWbN2o7_+RiEOBXmkGsGsKYjMqO4V-TD8Ado+3eTw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20180924194647.GA29897@server.rulingia.com>
 <alpine.DEB.2.20.1809251058140.3596@grey.csi.cam.ac.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1809251058140.3596@grey.csi.cam.ac.uk>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Subject: Re: [TUHS] SPARC is CRAPS spelled backwards.
X-BeenThere: tuhs@minnie.tuhs.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20
Precedence: list
List-Id: The Unix Heritage Society mailing list <tuhs.minnie.tuhs.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://minnie.tuhs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/tuhs>,
 <mailto:tuhs-request@minnie.tuhs.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://minnie.tuhs.org/pipermail/tuhs/>
List-Post: <mailto:tuhs@minnie.tuhs.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tuhs-request@minnie.tuhs.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://minnie.tuhs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tuhs>,
 <mailto:tuhs-request@minnie.tuhs.org?subject=subscribe>
Cc: tuhs@minnie.tuhs.org
Errors-To: tuhs-bounces@minnie.tuhs.org
Sender: "TUHS" <tuhs-bounces@minnie.tuhs.org>

On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 11:00:37AM +0100, Tony Finch wrote:
> Peter Jeremy <peter@rulingia.com> wrote:
> 
> > In the specific case of x86, I would dispute that.  The various warts in
> > the x86 instruction set and "architecture" mean that x86 code density is
> > relatively low and on a par with SPARC code.
> 
> This paper has a nice survey of instruction set densities, which very much
> disagrees with your statement:
> 
> http://web.eece.maine.edu/~vweaver/papers/iccd09/iccd09_density.pdf

That's a neat paper, I like it, thanks for the pointer.  I'm curious
why Peter thought what he thought, my guess would have been more like
what the paper showed, but that was a "hand optimized assembly", maybe
the compilers aren't that good?  I dunno, Peter, care to comment?