Re: harvard architectures - the d10v

[Doug Evans <dje@transmeta.com>]

Andrew Cagney writes:
 > Doug Evans wrote:
 > 
 > >  > ``But the d10v is a hack''?  So?  The point of the d10v, wasn't to
 > >  > provide a reference implementation (anything but!) but rather to provide
 > >  > a vehicle through which a reference implementation could be developed.
 > > 
 > > I don't know that the d10v was all the good a reference implementation
 > > or that one is even needed for the task at hand.
 > 
 > Notice that I carefully avoided calling the d10v a reference
 > implementation.  It isn't and I'm not claiming that it is.  Rather it is
 > a working example.  The moment anyone refers to the D10V code they are
 > probably missing the point :-)

I don't want to get into a debate over the pedantically correct
definition of a reference implementation.  And since you're the
one who brought the d10v up, I wonder who's the one missing the point. :-)

 > The thing to do with the d10v is look at how the user is able to
 > interact with it.  For instance, the user can cut addresses from one
 > part of the screen and paste them directly into new commands.  The user
 > can use 0 and have it mean NULL.  It is that sort of subtlety that the
 > d10v managed to resolve.

There may yet be subtleties involved, but I wouldn't put those
in that category.

 > The one thing people shouldn't be doing is designing some new set of
 > implementations without looking at what has been before and seeing how
 > real people felt things should work.

I'm with Per.  There's some infrastructure that's a prerequisite.