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=-0.4 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED, DKIM_SIGNED,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, T_DKIM_INVALID 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 41965959 for ; Tue, 25 Sep 2018 18:35:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id 6DB22A1DF3; Wed, 26 Sep 2018 04:35:26 +1000 (AEST) Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 53A069E99B; Wed, 26 Sep 2018 04:34:54 +1000 (AEST) Authentication-Results: minnie.tuhs.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b=lZJ4qRVA; dkim-atps=neutral Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id F32119E99B; Wed, 26 Sep 2018 04:34:49 +1000 (AEST) Received: from mail-lf1-f44.google.com (mail-lf1-f44.google.com [209.85.167.44]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B64019E998 for ; Wed, 26 Sep 2018 04:34:48 +1000 (AEST) Received: by mail-lf1-f44.google.com with SMTP id d7-v6so17159021lfj.9 for ; Tue, 25 Sep 2018 11:34:48 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=pig24CBOn2IgWxBvK3Z5MpJVU3aZCBkwdr1aaBx+kzg=; b=lZJ4qRVATWu0x5ycQzm7KfxjfQ3hHLMP4BhOaeKfm1vLdqeKMPjP64PhV84Es2V/+O 307X+JArTOS3qDuMCxLTbSsREBUZTJYTkHi5eMdgAsYdTdJVVZejoHy3rqTC++zZKEkk zsoEk0fEUD6/e8sChgw5PeDOEIFnyxhjPWH9Ru7sLL0YxVyetQl2HLMuNNlEJKnG9PST 3k+/COnNWGlO9m+Kz45PRyPJ4EGgxXGkooGaGBkR/3a370raYVRvM997to+LE+NgZmSy ZPnh3FzoEU9N1RUv+tkRwkcsg2qBXOjkiBdXEl96CR+M5DtJBHFmlFThevEOPm9criQO qoGQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=pig24CBOn2IgWxBvK3Z5MpJVU3aZCBkwdr1aaBx+kzg=; b=JzW/Xcr2mq+kvOGgtN98z5H2HKtmmpazWerJQ/6C0mOSCZTv/AhYksKLhKEmXEPjV5 ZdGxoPSbengCcDz2s6UnQwUouG6OBZkRQMrfkoROcByLn/Ko20S+d3vdxgWMBny51KBw F8iZx4gf1anTLZWsHAPZHO1od+T71ofzF0az9EhpETwBppYozt1gjTKtcK3hdOIqRG7W Kt3r4/nnP/9wnt3Hth7YBVne3cfoWJkno81QlCX17bC/rDVlALTwe8+Uj6HajJfV75R6 c4m2RWBljYedDgapbOrGOS13Ow3y+duTOOarf2wP4/xpFWIfzEBLxJW89yAbhJUDZS5N Xrpw== X-Gm-Message-State: ABuFfohFqRLw3Y2ioUrkZv6PM/Gibc29er0xVAAJ31m7NqOL8J1gv5AN Qdt/Xkt0KQ0kBwOdPP9kFECxcVG7JMditRIS2OM= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACcGV61O7FQVEurnZjd0o/DGTKHlSTdsRhtIzma3Zlxcgi4CEDZIQuBXO1Xc9Eg+uyTeQlX7wnhf1QWH7mhDLr6xCKs= X-Received: by 2002:a19:8c1a:: with SMTP id o26-v6mr1752848lfd.90.1537900486776; Tue, 25 Sep 2018 11:34:46 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 2002:a2e:82cb:0:0:0:0:0 with HTTP; Tue, 25 Sep 2018 11:34:46 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <1686170E-4323-4BDF-B95C-8A6B3FFD5288@gmail.com> <20180924194647.GA29897@server.rulingia.com> From: Paul Winalski Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2018 14:34:46 -0400 Message-ID: To: Tony Finch Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: tuhs@minnie.tuhs.org Errors-To: tuhs-bounces@minnie.tuhs.org Sender: "TUHS" On 9/25/18, Tony Finch wrote: > Peter Jeremy wrote: > > 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 Thanks for the pointer to that paper. Interesting reading. There is an error in Table I (Summary of Investigated Architectures). VAX is a pure little-endian architecture and can't operate on big-endian data without byte swizzling. Alpha, on the other hand, can operate either big- or little-endian (selectable at system boot time). The version of the Intel C compiler that they used--version 9--is a little old in the tooth. There have been several versions released since then. Interesting, and disappointing, that linking statically drags in the entire C runtime. Lo-level RTLs such as libc ought to be designed to minimize dependencies between individual library routines (e.g., if I call only strcmp(), strcmp.o and nothing else should participate in the static link). As the paper points out, compilers are usually designed to optimize for execution speed rather than code size these days. -Paul W.