Subject: Re: Lisp is neither (was Re: Ousterhout and Tcl lost the plot) From: Erik Naggum <email@example.com> Date: 1997/04/23 Newsgroups: comp.lang.scheme,comp.lang.scheme.scsh,comp.lang.lisp,comp.lang.tcl,comp.lang.functional,comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.perl.misc,comp.lang.python,comp.lang.eiffel Message-ID: <firstname.lastname@example.org> * Erik Naggum | (yes, CPU's _do_ have instructions that C compilers don't use.) * Donal K. Fellows | I take it you don't work in computer hardware design, and haven't even | looked at the field for at least 10 or 15 years, since that last | statement is plain wrong. Maybe Vaxes had a "Reverse Bit Shift, Cast | to Type and Catch Fire if the Programmer is Stupid" instruction (with | mnemonic RBSCTCFPS :^) but technology is substantially advanced since | then. RISC CPU's have only the instructions that are measured as | being needed in practice, and virtually all new designs are RISC (with | the notable distiction of the ix86 line of processors). In future, try | to check your facts, and especially those that have been contradicted | by people (with good reason) for loads of years... geez. the SPARC architecture has several instructions that C compilers doesn't use, but which are convenient with type-tagged languages. the _fact_ is that it has an the instruction, with Sun's recommended mnemonic "taddcctv", that is specifically useful in Lisp, and specifically unused in C. other instructions are also measurably useful in languages _other_ than C. C is _not_ the be-all, end-all of programming languages and C is _not_ the universal assembler that some would like it to be. that you cannot even put this instruction to use without a lot of prior work that you also have a hard time doing in C, shows that the SPARC designers thought of more than increasingly myopic C crowd. actually, I find it rather astonishing to learn that some people are so belligerently ignorant as to believe they can pull off a stunt like the above from D. K. Fellows. but to demonstrate the point with a real-life example, take the following (silly) function, compiled by Allegro Common Lisp for Unix on a SPARC: (defun foo (x y) (declare (fixnum x y)) (+ x y)) 0: cmp %g3, #x2 4: tne %g0, #x13 8: taddcctv %g0, %g1, %g0 12: sra %o0, #x2, %o0 16: sra %o1, #x2, %o1 20: add %o0, %o1, %o0 24: ld [%g4 + 135], %g2 ; fixnum-or-bignum 28: jmp %g2 + 0 32: xor %g0, #x1, %g3 the intelligent reader will recognize that this function sports a few features not commonly found in C compiler output: the number of incoming arguments is in a register, there are traps to handle error conditions, and it concludes with a jump to a function instead of a call and return. (no programmer knowledgeable of pipelines RISCs will wonder why the jmp occurs before the argument count is stored into %g3.) I welcome suggestions on how to accomplish the _exact equivalent code_ from C source code. if this cannot be done, could Donal K. Fellows then accept that some CPU's (1) do have instructions that C compilers don't use, and (2) that he shot his mouth off? I assume both, so let's return to our regular program. #\Erik -- Bastard Sex Therapist from Hell: "Read the F*cking Manual!"