Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.arch > #119071

Re: Register windows

From anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl)
Newsgroups comp.arch
Subject Re: Register windows
Date 2026-11-07 18:01 +0000
Organization Institut fuer Computersprachen, Technische Universitaet Wien
Message-ID <2026Nov7.190141@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> (permalink)
References (6 earlier) <1793120292-5857@newsgrouper.org> <2026Oct29.171118@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> <1793296454-5857@newsgrouper.org> <2026Oct29.190945@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> <11cnj5a$36etq$1@paganini.bofh.team>

Show all headers | View raw

antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) writes:
>Anton Ertl <anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> wrote:
>> In a modern
>> (post-1995, with a few exceptions, most of which have died out in the
>> meantime) processor the front end predicts the return from the
>> processor-internal return stack and often starts fetching from there
>> before the load-store unit sees the load of the return address.  The
>> return address is then used to validate the branch prediction and
>> retire the return instruction.
>
>It must be more complex.  Silly fibonacci benchmark shows average
>performance of function call per 2 clocks.

Without inlining?  On what hardware?

What I see on a Rocket Lake with a Fibonacci program compiled by the
Rust 1.89 compiler is 3.6 cycles per return (i.e., also per call, with
2.3 branches per return).  I have not looked at the code to see if
there is any inlining, but given that a regular fibonacci call
includes a call, a conditional branch, and a return (with any
recursive call accounted separately), showing 2.3 branches indicates
that there is at least some inlining going on here.

>Given length of
>the pipeline return address is pushed too late to use it for
>fetching intructions after return.  In other words, return
>must be predicted before the call starts executing.

Certainly.  Modern branch predictors have to trigger on addresses, not
on the results of fetches.  But if a microarchitecture really does a
non-inlined fibonacci program at two cycles per call, even more
prediction has to be done: In the base case (half of the calls) the
push to the return address stack is followed by a pull from the return
address stack, and all of that and the prediction based on the return
address must happen in two cycles.  Or maybe there is some special
fast path for such cases.

What the microarchitects do in the branch predictors is certainly
amazing.

- anton
-- 
'Anyone trying for "industrial quality" ISA should avoid undefined behavior.'
  Mitch Alsup, <c17fcd89-f024-40e7-a594-88a85ac10d20o@googlegroups.com>

Back to comp.arch | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

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