Groups > comp.arch > #119059

Re: Register windows

From	Paul Clayton <paaronclayton@gmail.com>
Newsgroups	comp.arch
Subject	Re: Register windows
Date	2026-11-04 22:45 -0500
Organization	A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID	<11clehe$2snva$1@dont-email.me> (permalink)
References	(10 earlier) <1793385253-5857@newsgrouper.org> <2026Oct31.091342@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> <1793470952-5857@newsgrouper.org> <2026Oct31.201546@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> <1793479457-5857@newsgrouper.org>

Show all headers | View raw

On 10/31/26 4:44 PM, MitchAlsup wrote:
[snip]
> I see similar (at a smaller scale) when my cores perform CoIssue
> (similar to instruction fusing, but designed to leverage RF ports
> across instructions. A CoIssued instruction requires no more RF
> ports or rename ports than any 'random' instruction can use.

I think I would view CoIssue as a limited form of superscalar
execution that has fine-grained hazard detection.

With support for worst-case execution of three-source, one-
destination instructions (e.g., no source coming from the
forwarding network) and wide fetch (reducing fetch energy),
there would be more opportunities for two-wide execution in a
nominally one-wide design.

I would guess that even two-way register banking would expose
even more opportunities for dual issue at the cost of more
complex hazard detection. (A 50% chance of two-wide issue
enabled when base CoIssue is prevented only from the two
instructions each having a register destination. Clever register
allocation could increase the frequency of two-wide execution.)
Adding such execution opportunities might then incentivize
increasing execution resources, pushing the design closer to a
conventional two-wide superscalar.

(Even wider register access support for load/store multiple
operations — ENTER/EXIT, context switch, etc. — might sometimes
effectively provide more register ports, though I would have
guessed that banking would not have that much more overhead.)

Supporting two register destinations would presumably complicate
the forwarding; limited forwarding would introduce another
hazard to detect and potentially extend such to single issue.

Borrowing across cycles could also support wider execution.
E.g., if two instructions cannot CoIssue because both
instructions read two registers, the earlier instruction could
CoIssue with a pseudo-instruction that moves one register source
from the later instruction into a buffer. The next cycle the
first instruction would have only one register source (and one
buffer source), and so would have a better chance of being
eligible for CoIssue.

Stores may also tolerate delayed register read. An indexed
store might normally be ineligible for CoIssue (having three
register sources), but might be able to borrow a register
read port from the next cycle.

[I do wonder if it would be practical to detect/express that a
result is only stored. A Decoupled Access/Execute architecture
could simply use a register name to indicate result being sent
to the store queue (execute-to-access queue). This effectively
partially fuses a computation instruction and a potentially
substantially later store instruction, removing the need for
allocating a destination physical register and using a register
write port and possibly a register read port for the store (the
store data might be supplied by ordinary forwarding in a
conventional design).]

Dependent instructions would present opportunities for later
wider execution as one register operand would be from the
forwarding network and one or more register sources could be
read earlier and buffered.

Borrowing a register write might also be possible. With a
memory-access stage before writeback (classic 5-stage pipeline),
it might be possible for the register write slot from an
immediately previous no-register-write execution to be borrowed
(inserting the write into the second forwarding slot). Borrowing
a write slot from the following execution cycle

> Since STs do not write to RF, STs can be CoIssued with any following
> calculation instruction (or branch instruction).

Presumably excluding indexed loads, which read three register 
sources? With four register read ports, an indexed load could
CoIssue with an immediate-using calculation instruction (or an
instruction getting one source from the forwarding network), but
I thought only three read ports were the design target.

> Since conditional Branch instructions do not write RF, they can be
> CoIssued with previous calculation instruction.

Presumably this is not possible if the branch is dependent on
the result of the calculation instruction.

(A branch might also be CoIssued with a following calculation
instruction if the calculation instruction can be annulled,
which might not require much more hardware if predication is
implemented by suppressing register writes when the predicate
evaluation is delayed. This wastes some energy.)

> STs and <conditional> branches make up 30%-odd of instruction stream:
> so, the decoder looks to be processing 1.3 I/c in a 1-wide implementa-
> tion.
> 
> There are other potentials--but since this is not close to RISC-V's
> instruction fusing, I had to use a different word.

It is not clear to me that a separate term is needed. How is
CoIssue distinct from superscalar execution with management of
register read and write port hazards? Not having to look at the
register names to determine potential CoIssue has some
advantage, but a one-register source instruction could also
CoIssue with a two-register source if two register destinations
were supported without looking at the register names. If two-way
banking was used only one bit from each instruction would have
to be compared to enable two register writes. (The extra
forwarding complexity to support two register writes might make
more general superscalar execution a better choice.)

If register port count is the primary constraint, a three-read, 
one-write register file could support a slightly broader set of
instruction pairings. Two-read, one-write, and one-read/write
could support even more diverse pairings, some detectable just
from the opcode (two one register source instructions). Two-way
banking presents even more two-wide execution opportunities.

An instruction following an instruction with a register
destination would have to check for a dependency, which would
presumably delay register read or force instruction result 
nullification and instruction replay (wasting energy and adding
some complexity). Since a branch can CoIssue with a previous
calculation instruction, this case already needs to handle a
potential dependency.

A skewed or second-chance pipeline (skewed: address generation 
is one or more stages before execute; second-chance: branch and
perhaps other instructions can execute in an earlier execute
stage with address generation or a later stage) is another
superscalar variation. (Counterflow pipelines [Robert F. Sproull 
et al., "Counterflow Pipeline Processor Architecture", 1994] are
reminiscent of second-chance pipelines and cascaded execution.)

1.3 wide execution may be preferred over 1 wide or 1.9x wide
(not allowing two memory access instructions, two multiplies,
or two branches, but allowing most other instruction pairings);
faster than 1 wide and simpler than 1.9x wide. Such would also
be faster on integer code than early FPR+GPR superscalar. Not
being a hardware designer, I do not have a feel for how much
complexity (and delay) more flexible superscalar would add.
*IF* register file port count is the _only_ significant
constraint, more general two-wide execution seems reasonable.
A lot of instructions use an immediate for one operand or
get an operand from the forwarding network, and banking would
increase the effective port count. Yet I must assume that
CoIssue is a good design point, which indicates that hardware
overheads (and not mere design complexity) make 1.5 wide
execution excessively expensive.

Thread

Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-03-01 08:09 +0000
  Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2025-03-01 11:58 +0000
    Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2025-03-01 18:03 +0000
      Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2025-03-01 20:01 +0000
      Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2025-03-02 09:34 +0000
        Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC Robert Swindells <rjs@fdy2.co.uk> - 2025-03-02 15:42 +0000
          Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2025-03-02 18:30 +0000
            Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC Robert Swindells <rjs@fdy2.co.uk> - 2025-03-05 15:01 +0000
              Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-03-06 00:24 +0000
                Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2025-03-06 01:01 +0000
          Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2025-03-02 09:03 -1000
        Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC EricP <ThatWouldBeTelling@thevillage.com> - 2025-03-02 13:51 -0500
          Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2025-03-03 18:05 +0000
            Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2025-03-03 19:24 +0000
              Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-03-03 20:04 +0000
              Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2025-03-03 22:41 +0000
                Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2025-03-05 18:08 +0000
                Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC EricP <ThatWouldBeTelling@thevillage.com> - 2025-03-05 19:04 -0500
                Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2025-03-06 06:53 +0000
                Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC EricP <ThatWouldBeTelling@thevillage.com> - 2025-03-07 14:26 -0500
                Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2025-03-08 10:52 +0000
                Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC EricP <ThatWouldBeTelling@thevillage.com> - 2025-03-08 13:03 -0500
                Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2025-03-08 19:42 +0000
                Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC EricP <ThatWouldBeTelling@thevillage.com> - 2025-03-09 10:13 -0400
                Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC Torbjorn Lindgren <tl@none.invalid> - 2025-03-09 01:27 +0000
                Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2025-03-09 01:46 +0000
                Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2025-03-09 07:02 +0000
                Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC EricP <ThatWouldBeTelling@thevillage.com> - 2025-03-09 10:15 -0400
            Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC EricP <ThatWouldBeTelling@thevillage.com> - 2025-03-03 20:12 -0500
              Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2025-03-04 10:09 +0000
        Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2025-03-02 21:26 +0000
          Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-03-02 21:57 +0000
            Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2025-03-02 23:43 +0000
              Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-03-03 02:08 +0000
        Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2025-03-02 16:35 -0600
    Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2025-03-01 17:59 +0000
      Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-03-01 17:42 -0800
    Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2025-03-01 20:46 +0000
      Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2025-03-01 22:25 +0000
        Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-03-02 02:40 +0000
          Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2025-03-02 13:19 +0000
            Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-03-02 21:48 +0000
              Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2025-03-03 17:57 +0000
                Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-03-03 23:27 +0000
            Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2025-03-02 22:00 +0000
              Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-03-03 14:56 +0000
        Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2025-03-01 18:29 -1000
        Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2025-03-02 20:02 +0000
          Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-03-02 21:50 +0000
          Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2025-03-02 22:40 +0000
            Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2025-03-03 02:58 +0000
              Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-03-03 03:36 +0000
              Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2025-03-03 07:39 +0000
                Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-03-03 14:45 +0200
                Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2025-03-03 17:32 +0000
                Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-03-03 23:26 +0000
            Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2025-03-03 07:24 +0000
              Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2025-03-03 08:06 +0000
                Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2025-03-03 16:41 -0600
            Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC MarkC <usenet@em-ess-see-twenty-seven.me.uk> - 2025-03-03 12:43 +0000
              Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2025-03-03 16:44 +0000
                Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2025-03-03 17:53 +0000
                Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-03-03 23:23 +0000
                Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2025-03-04 03:04 -0600
                Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2025-03-04 10:04 +0000
                Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-03-04 23:27 +0000
                Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2025-03-05 07:36 +0000
                Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2025-03-06 02:30 +0000
                Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2025-03-06 16:11 -1000
                Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2025-03-08 07:27 +0000
                Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2025-03-07 02:27 +0000
                Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-03-07 04:09 +0000
                Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2025-03-07 05:08 -0600
                Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2025-03-07 17:34 +0000
                Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC Robert Finch <robfi680@gmail.com> - 2025-03-07 13:27 -0500
                Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2025-03-07 20:07 +0000
                Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2025-03-07 15:00 -0600
                Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2025-03-07 22:51 +0000
                Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC Robert Finch <robfi680@gmail.com> - 2025-03-07 18:40 -0500
                Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2025-03-07 20:49 -0600
                Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2025-03-08 03:28 +0000
                Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-03-09 02:55 +0000
                Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2025-03-10 17:40 -0500
                Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-03-10 23:17 +0000
                Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2025-03-10 19:30 -0500
                Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2025-03-11 00:53 +0000
                Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC Robert Finch <robfi680@gmail.com> - 2025-03-10 22:49 -0400
                Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2025-03-11 01:14 -0500
                Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2025-03-11 18:00 +0000
                Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-03-11 21:29 +0000
                Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC Terje Mathisen <terje.mathisen@tmsw.no> - 2025-03-11 22:41 +0100
                Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC David Schultz <david.schultz@earthlink.net> - 2025-03-11 16:57 -0500
                Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-03-11 22:40 +0000
                Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2025-03-12 08:57 +0000
                Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-03-12 21:35 +0000
                Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2025-03-11 17:44 +0000
                Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC Stephen Fuld <sfuld@alumni.cmu.edu.invalid> - 2025-03-11 11:15 -0700
                Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2025-03-11 18:56 +0000
                Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC Stephen Fuld <sfuld@alumni.cmu.edu.invalid> - 2025-03-11 13:46 -0700
                Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-03-11 22:43 +0000
                Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2025-03-11 18:52 -0500
                Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-03-12 00:34 +0000
                Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2025-03-11 18:48 -0500
                Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC moi <findlaybill@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2025-03-11 19:07 +0000
                Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC Stephen Fuld <sfuld@alumni.cmu.edu.invalid> - 2025-03-11 13:39 -0700
                Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-03-11 22:44 +0000
                Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2025-03-11 18:58 -0500
                Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-03-12 00:37 +0000
                Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC Stephen Fuld <sfuld@alumni.cmu.edu.invalid> - 2025-03-11 19:28 -0700
                Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2025-03-12 00:51 +0000
                Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2025-03-12 01:24 -0500
                Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-03-12 14:14 +0000
                Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC Terje Mathisen <terje.mathisen@tmsw.no> - 2025-03-12 17:08 +0100
                Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2025-03-12 00:36 +0000
                Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2025-03-12 09:07 +0000
                Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-03-12 23:55 +0000
                Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC moi <findlaybill@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2025-03-12 00:27 +0000
                Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2025-03-12 00:37 +0000
                Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC moi <findlaybill@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2025-03-12 00:43 +0000
                Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-03-11 21:26 +0000
                Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2025-03-12 00:26 +0000
                Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-03-12 00:38 +0000
                Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2025-03-12 04:02 -0500
                Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2025-03-12 09:14 +0000
                Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-03-11 22:42 +0000
                Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2025-03-12 00:42 +0000
                Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2025-03-12 08:02 +0000
                Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-03-12 23:58 +0000
                Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC Stephen Fuld <sfuld@alumni.cmu.edu.invalid> - 2025-03-13 12:08 -0700
                Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-03-11 21:18 +0000
                Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2025-03-10 23:49 -0500
                Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2025-03-11 17:57 +0000
                Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2025-03-11 16:20 -0500
                Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2025-03-12 00:33 +0000
                Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2025-03-12 01:09 -0500
                Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2025-03-07 20:48 -0600
                Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-03-07 22:25 +0000
                Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2025-03-07 22:45 +0000
                Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-03-08 14:36 +0000
                Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2025-03-08 17:57 +0000
                Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2025-03-07 17:19 -0600
                Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC Robert Finch <robfi680@gmail.com> - 2025-03-07 13:03 -0500
                Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2025-03-07 16:57 -0600
                Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-03-08 01:02 +0000
                Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2025-03-08 02:08 +0000
                Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2025-03-07 17:35 +0000
                Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2025-03-07 18:52 +0000
                Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-03-08 01:00 +0000
                Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-03-08 00:57 +0000
                Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC EricP <ThatWouldBeTelling@thevillage.com> - 2025-03-07 14:59 -0500
                Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2025-03-07 20:25 +0000
                Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2025-03-11 22:15 +0000
                Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-03-11 22:48 +0000
                Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2025-03-12 00:46 +0000
                Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2025-03-12 08:42 +0000
                Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-03-12 11:48 +0200
                Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2025-03-12 11:28 +0000
                Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-03-12 14:09 +0200
                rep movsb vs. simpler instructions for memcpy/memmove (was: Why VAX ..) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2025-03-12 16:46 +0000
                Re: rep movsb vs. simpler instructions for memcpy/memmove mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2025-03-12 17:44 +0000
                Re: rep movsb vs. simpler instructions for memcpy/memmove Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-03-13 00:03 +0000
                Re: rep movsb vs. simpler instructions for memcpy/memmove mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2025-03-13 00:49 +0000
                Re: rep movsb vs. simpler instructions for memcpy/memmove Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-03-13 02:34 +0000
                Re: rep movsb vs. simpler instructions for memcpy/memmove EricP <ThatWouldBeTelling@thevillage.com> - 2025-03-13 01:48 -0400
                Re: rep movsb vs. simpler instructions for memcpy/memmove Robert Finch <robfi680@gmail.com> - 2025-03-13 05:10 -0400
                Re: rep movsb vs. simpler instructions for memcpy/memmove mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2025-03-13 16:15 +0000
                Re: rep movsb vs. simpler instructions for memcpy/memmove Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-03-13 16:29 +0200
                Re: rep movsb vs. simpler instructions for memcpy/memmove mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2025-03-13 16:19 +0000
                Re: rep movsb vs. simpler instructions for memcpy/memmove mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2025-03-13 16:10 +0000
                Re: rep movsb vs. simpler instructions for memcpy/memmove Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2025-03-13 09:40 -0400
                Re: rep movsb vs. simpler instructions for memcpy/memmove Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-03-13 16:23 +0200
                Re: rep movsb vs. simpler instructions for memcpy/memmove mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2025-03-13 16:24 +0000
                Re: rep movsb vs. simpler instructions for memcpy/memmove Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2025-03-13 12:43 -0400
                Re: rep movsb vs. simpler instructions for memcpy/memmove mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2025-03-13 19:35 +0000
                Re: rep movsb vs. simpler instructions for memcpy/memmove Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2025-03-13 15:53 -0400
                Re: rep movsb vs. simpler instructions for memcpy/memmove mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2025-03-13 20:59 +0000
                Re: rep movsb vs. simpler instructions for memcpy/memmove Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2025-03-13 17:44 -0400
                Re: rep movsb vs. simpler instructions for memcpy/memmove scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-03-13 23:24 +0000
                Re: rep movsb vs. simpler instructions for memcpy/memmove jgd@cix.co.uk (John Dallman) - 2025-03-16 14:27 +0000
                Re: rep movsb vs. simpler instructions for memcpy/memmove Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-03-13 22:55 +0200
                Re: rep movsb vs. simpler instructions for memcpy/memmove scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-03-13 21:42 +0000
                Re: rep movsb vs. simpler instructions for memcpy/memmove Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2025-03-13 17:48 -0400
                Re: rep movsb vs. simpler instructions for memcpy/memmove scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-03-13 23:25 +0000
                Re: rep movsb vs. simpler instructions for memcpy/memmove mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2025-03-14 00:19 +0000
                Re: rep movsb vs. simpler instructions for memcpy/memmove scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-03-14 14:35 +0000
                Re: rep movsb vs. simpler instructions for memcpy/memmove Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2025-03-13 21:08 -0400
                Re: rep movsb vs. simpler instructions for memcpy/memmove mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2025-03-14 01:30 +0000
                Re: rep movsb vs. simpler instructions for memcpy/memmove Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2025-03-13 22:20 -0400
                Re: rep movsb vs. simpler instructions for memcpy/memmove Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-03-14 00:16 +0200
                Re: rep movsb vs. simpler instructions for memcpy/memmove scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-03-13 23:27 +0000
                Re: rep movsb vs. simpler instructions for memcpy/memmove Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-03-14 12:10 +0200
                Re: rep movsb vs. simpler instructions for memcpy/memmove cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2025-03-14 11:15 +0000
                Re: rep movsb vs. simpler instructions for memcpy/memmove mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2025-03-14 00:18 +0000
                Re: rep movsb vs. simpler instructions for memcpy/memmove Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-03-14 12:06 +0200
                Re: rep movsb vs. simpler instructions for memcpy/memmove anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2025-03-14 12:25 +0000
                Re: rep movsb vs. simpler instructions for memcpy/memmove scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-03-14 14:38 +0000
                Re: rep movsb vs. simpler instructions for memcpy/memmove Terje Mathisen <terje.mathisen@tmsw.no> - 2025-03-14 12:52 +0100
                Re: rep movsb vs. simpler instructions for memcpy/memmove Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-03-14 14:00 +0200
                Re: rep movsb vs. simpler instructions for memcpy/memmove anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2025-03-14 13:18 +0000
                Re: rep movsb vs. simpler instructions for memcpy/memmove Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-03-14 16:20 +0200
                Re: rep movsb vs. simpler instructions for memcpy/memmove scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-03-14 14:46 +0000
                Re: rep movsb vs. simpler instructions for memcpy/memmove Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-03-14 16:51 +0200
                Re: rep movsb vs. simpler instructions for memcpy/memmove mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2025-03-14 15:39 +0000
                Re: rep movsb vs. simpler instructions for memcpy/memmove scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-03-14 17:38 +0000
                Re: rep movsb vs. simpler instructions for memcpy/memmove scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-03-14 14:44 +0000
                Re: rep movsb vs. simpler instructions for memcpy/memmove Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2025-03-14 16:37 -0400
                Re: rep movsb vs. simpler instructions for memcpy/memmove mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2025-03-14 22:23 +0000
                Re: rep movsb vs. simpler instructions for memcpy/memmove (was: Why VAX ..) Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-03-13 23:06 +0200
                Re: rep movsb vs. simpler instructions for memcpy/memmove mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2025-03-13 22:07 +0000
                Re: rep movsb vs. simpler instructions for memcpy/memmove (was: Why VAX ..) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2025-03-14 12:43 +0000
                Re: rep movsb vs. simpler instructions for memcpy/memmove (was: Why VAX ..) George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> - 2025-03-16 01:22 -0400
                Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-03-13 00:03 +0000
                Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-03-13 00:01 +0000
                Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-03-07 13:57 +0200
                Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC Terje Mathisen <terje.mathisen@tmsw.no> - 2025-03-07 15:23 +0100
                Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC Robert Swindells <rjs@fdy2.co.uk> - 2025-03-03 22:15 +0000
                Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2025-03-04 08:39 +0000
    Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2025-03-01 16:29 -0600
      Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2025-03-02 01:02 +0000
        Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2025-03-02 02:56 -0600
      Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2025-03-02 11:46 +0000
        Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2025-03-02 14:39 -0600
          Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC Stephen Fuld <sfuld@alumni.cmu.edu.invalid> - 2025-03-02 13:16 -0800
            Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-03-02 22:00 +0000
          Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2025-03-02 22:27 +0000
            Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC "Brian G. Lucas" <bagel99@gmail.com> - 2025-03-03 11:04 -0500
              Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2025-03-04 02:09 +0000
                Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC "Brian G. Lucas" <bagel99@gmail.com> - 2025-03-04 11:46 -0500
                Re: PC/IX, not, Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2025-03-04 21:00 +0000
                Re: PC/IX, not, Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC "Brian G. Lucas" <bagel99@gmail.com> - 2025-03-04 17:51 -0500
              Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC jgd@cix.co.uk (John Dallman) - 2025-03-04 16:53 +0000
                Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-03-04 23:29 +0000
                Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC jgd@cix.co.uk (John Dallman) - 2025-03-05 09:16 +0000
                Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> - 2025-03-07 06:03 -0500
                Re: PC/IX, Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2025-03-08 01:13 +0000
        Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC Terje Mathisen <terje.mathisen@tmsw.no> - 2025-03-03 16:34 +0100
          Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2025-03-03 17:21 +0000
            Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC Terje Mathisen <terje.mathisen@tmsw.no> - 2025-03-03 18:51 +0100
            Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-03-03 19:53 +0200
              Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> - 2025-03-04 16:32 -0500
                Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-03-05 01:28 +0200
                Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-03-05 00:05 +0000
                Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-03-05 15:07 +0200
          Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-03-03 23:32 +0000
      Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-03-02 21:56 +0000
    Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-03-02 00:16 +0000
      Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2025-03-02 12:10 +0000
    Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2025-03-05 15:28 -0500
      Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2025-03-05 21:15 +0000
  Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC EricP <ThatWouldBeTelling@thevillage.com> - 2025-03-01 14:40 -0500
    Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2025-03-01 22:30 +0000
    Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-03-01 23:19 +0000
      Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2025-03-01 17:45 -0600
      Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2025-03-01 17:45 -0600
        Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-03-02 16:33 +0200
      Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2025-03-02 12:03 +0000
        Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2025-03-02 21:35 +0000
    Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2025-03-02 21:50 +0000
  Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2025-03-05 11:58 +0000
    Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-03-06 00:28 +0000
  Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC quadibloc@invalid.com (John Savard) - 2026-10-24 00:05 +0000
    Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-10-24 19:28 +0000
      Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2026-10-24 20:42 +0000
        Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2026-10-26 18:33 +0000
          Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2026-10-26 19:56 +0000
            Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2026-10-27 06:31 +0000
              Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-10-27 16:58 +0000
                Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2026-10-27 20:43 +0000
                Register windows (was: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2026-10-29 16:11 +0000
                Re: Register windows (was: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC) MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-10-29 17:54 +0000
                Re: Register windows (was: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2026-10-29 18:09 +0000
                Re: Register windows (was: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC) MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-10-29 20:31 +0000
                Re: Register windows (was: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2026-10-30 07:06 +0000
                Re: Register windows (was: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC) MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-10-30 18:34 +0000
                Re: Register windows (was: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2026-10-31 08:13 +0000
                Re: Register windows (was: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC) MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-10-31 18:22 +0000
                Re: Register windows (was: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2026-10-31 19:15 +0000
                Re: Register windows (was: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC) MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-10-31 20:44 +0000
                Re: Register windows Paul Clayton <paaronclayton@gmail.com> - 2026-11-04 22:45 -0500
                Re: Register windows antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-11-07 16:21 +0000
                Re: Register windows anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2026-11-07 18:01 +0000
                Re: Register windows antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-11-08 04:37 +0000
                Re: Register windows Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-11-08 04:49 +0000
                Re: Register windows antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-11-08 14:19 +0000
                call and return speed (was: Register windows) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2026-11-08 06:33 +0000
                Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC quadibloc@invalid.com (John Savard) - 2026-10-30 00:10 +0000
                Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-10-30 00:33 +0000
      Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-24 22:20 +0000
        Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-10-24 23:33 +0000
      Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC EricP <ThatWouldBeTelling@thevillage.com> - 2026-10-25 12:56 -0400
        Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2026-10-25 18:42 +0000
          Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2026-10-25 20:03 +0000
        Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2026-10-25 23:36 -0400
          Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2026-10-26 18:46 +0000
            Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-26 14:29 -0700
      Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2026-10-26 18:19 +0000
        Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-10-27 16:41 +0000
          Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2026-10-27 18:16 +0000
            Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-10-27 21:01 +0000
              Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-10-27 21:14 +0000
    Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2026-10-26 18:06 +0000
      Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-10-26 18:53 +0000
        Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-26 14:30 -0700
          Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-26 14:32 -0700
            Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-26 22:16 +0000
              Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2026-10-27 10:04 -0700
                Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2026-10-27 12:44 -0700
                Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2026-10-27 13:03 -0700
              Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC Roman Belenov <no@spam.please> - 2026-10-27 20:22 +0300
                Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-27 18:05 +0000
                Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-27 20:15 +0200
                Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-27 18:50 +0000
                Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-27 21:16 +0200
                Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2026-10-27 12:46 -0700
                Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-27 22:00 +0200
                Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC Dave Yeo <dave.r.yeo@gmail.com> - 2026-10-27 11:14 -0700
                Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-27 22:19 +0000
            Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC jgd@cix.co.uk (John Dallman) - 2026-10-27 08:18 +0000
              Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-27 22:32 +0000
                Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC jgd@cix.co.uk (John Dallman) - 2026-10-28 08:08 +0000
      Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-26 22:13 +0000

csiph-web