IA-64 takes the attitude of "let's offload lots of work to the compiler,
and get rid of as much hairy logic on the chip as possible so we can
devote logic to actually doing work..." which I really like as you might
tell.
I'm sure IA-64 isn't nearly as full of original design ideas as Intel
would have us believe -- they say it's not RISC, for example, but it sure
looks like RISC.
Comments, corrections, flames?
-- Adam
On Thu, 22 Jan 1998, Thomas Pornin wrote:
> Thanks for using NetForward!
> http://www.netforward.com
> v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v
>
> In article <Pine.LNX.3.95.980122135621.13106A-100000@pcainf13.ing.uniroma1.it> you write:
> >the thread about the wishlist is great, but I think that a big problem is
> >if WE ARE READY FOR THE 64BIT INTEL ARCHITECTURE.
> >
> >I've heard that glibc is ready, but the kernel?
>
> The kernel and many libraries already run really well on Alpha and sparc64
> boxes, both being 64 bits architectures.
>
> So, yes, the kernel and the libraries are ready for the 64 bits. And the
> new Intel is no wonder, only Intel being a few years behind Digital and
> trying to fill the gap with hype.
>
> --Thomas Pornin
>