From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Doug Evans To: Andrew Cagney Cc: David Taylor , Kevin Buettner , Nick Duffek , Michael Snyder , Jim Blandy , GDB Discussion Subject: Re: harvard architectures - the d10v Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2001 23:59:00 -0000 Message-id: <14979.41818.127484.943746@casey.transmeta.com> References: <3A82F7E9.D4641BD1@cygnus.com> <14979.2615.608456.807316@casey.transmeta.com> <3A831746.CAB9C621@cygnus.com> X-SW-Source: 2001-02/msg00097.html 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.