aglew@crhc.uiuc.edu (Andy Glew) (11/16/90)
Are comp.arch readers aware of IEEE Standards Project "P1754: Standard for an Open Microprocessor Architecture", whose purpose is to define an open, non-proprietary, microprocessor architecture, based on SPARC, defining instruction set, register model, data types, opcodes, and coprocessors -- and, probably, eventually, things like calling conventions and ABIs. Email contact: P1754@sparc.com Note: I am not connected with this group in any way, except that I just received a call for participation in the mail. I am thinking about participating, but since I don't have the funds to attend the working group meetings I'd just read the stuff. -- Andy Glew, a-glew@uiuc.edu [get ph nameserver from uxc.cso.uiuc.edu:net/qi]
henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) (11/17/90)
In article <AGLEW.90Nov15214625@lasso.crhc.uiuc.edu> aglew@crhc.uiuc.edu (Andy Glew) writes: >Are comp.arch readers aware of IEEE Standards Project "P1754: Standard >for an Open Microprocessor Architecture", whose purpose is to define >an open, non-proprietary, microprocessor architecture, based on SPARC... Gah. It wasn't bad enough that every manufacturer managed to get his favorite bus canonized as an IEEE standard? Now we're in for the same thing with instruction sets. What a waste of time and effort. -- "I don't *want* to be normal!" | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology "Not to worry." | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry
roland@CS.Stanford.EDU (Roland Conybeare) (11/20/90)
henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: >aglew@crhc.uiuc.edu (Andy Glew) writes: >Are comp.arch readers aware of IEEE Standards Project "P1754: Standard >for an Open Microprocessor Architecture", whose purpose is to define >an open, non-proprietary, microprocessor architecture, based on SPARC... Gah. It wasn't bad enough that every manufacturer managed to get his favorite bus canonized as an IEEE standard? Now we're in for the same thing with instruction sets. What a waste of time and effort. I understand that the SPARC licencing agreement is exclusive. However there's a clause that voids the exclusive nature if SPARC becomes public domain. P1754 means that Sun will no longer receive licensing fees for SPARC, and will lose control over its evolution. I believe Sun hopes to enlarge the market for SPARC machines by inviting competition (this seems like an extraordinary action to me!). Sun wins if it keeps market share & SPARCs become commonplace. On the other hand Sun may lose to superior manufacturing. Interesting times.. Roland Conybeare roland@cs.Stanford.EDU
sysmgr@KING.ENG.UMD.EDU (Doug Mohney) (11/20/90)
In article <ROLAND.90Nov19160821@lolly.Stanford.EDU>, roland@CS.Stanford.EDU (Roland Conybeare) writes: >P1754 means that Sun will no longer receive licensing fees for SPARC, and will >lose control over its evolution. Hum. Control how? They'll still have the Sun OS to sell. This is not an unsubstantial thing (so long as they don't get greedy about it). >I believe Sun hopes to enlarge the market for SPARC machines by inviting >competition (this seems like an extraordinary action to me!). It's working well so far, since now we have Cheap SPARCs, Multi-processor SPARCs, high-performance SPARCs (real soon now), and SPARC in a Box! (Portable SPARC). >Sun wins if it keeps market share & SPARCs become commonplace. On the other >hand Sun may lose to superior manufacturing. Sun doesn't sell manufacturing. They sell workstations, and (so far as my limited knowledge goes) buy their CPUs and some of the other stuff from other manufacturers. >Interesting times.. Ain't it tho? The inital blurb I read about the SparcStation II indicates it has better (yah, better) graphics performance than equilivently configured DECstation 5000es. Fasten your seat belts because round 3 starts in January. Doug Mohney, Operations Manager, CAD Lab/ME, Univ. of Maryland College Park * Why do VMS system managers get more sleep and less ulcers than their * * UNIX(TM) counterparts, despite the sophistication of UNIX? *
egdorf@zaphod.lanl.gov (Skip Egdorf) (11/21/90)
In article <ROLAND.90Nov19160821@lolly.Stanford.EDU> roland@CS.Stanford.EDU (Roland Conybeare) writes: > I believe Sun hopes to enlarge the market for SPARC machines by inviting > competition (this seems like an extraordinary action to me!). > > Roland Conybeare > roland@cs.Stanford.EDU I have heard S. McNealy state in public something to the effect of "Building workstations with the MC68k series, we ate our competition's lunch. We have no fear of doing so again with another architecture available to the public (SPARC)." I think that the point is well made and that Sun (for all its faults) is unique in the industry for such a long-term view. In that sense, it is "an extraordinary action!" I also believe that this is the proper way to ensure the domination of the SPARC architecture regardless of the technical quibbles voiced so often (and often correctly!) in this newsgroup. ...Says he, typing on the keyboard of his Solbourne 5/500... Skip Egdorf hwe@lanl.gov
guy@auspex.auspex.com (Guy Harris) (11/26/90)
>>P1754 means that Sun will no longer receive licensing fees for SPARC, and will >>lose control over its evolution. > >Hum. Control how? They'll still have the Sun OS to sell. This is not an >unsubstantial thing (so long as they don't get greedy about it). Well, they will still have an OS that they offer for their SPARC-based machines; whether it'll be called "SunOS" is a different question (one that I'm not sure Sun has resolved yet or not). A "reference port" of System V Release 4 should be available at some point (if it's not already available), but the "reference port" was done by ICL, not Sun (although I think lots of it may be based on SunOS code), probably to their DRS 6000 machines. Sun may be getting out of the business of supplying OSes to makers of SPARC-based machines; they'll probably have their own stuff added on to the S5R4 reference port, and I don't know which, if any, of those things they'll license. >>Sun wins if it keeps market share & SPARCs become commonplace. On the other >>hand Sun may lose to superior manufacturing. > >Sun doesn't sell manufacturing. They sell workstations, and (so far as my >limited knowledge goes) buy their CPUs and some of the other stuff from other >manufacturers. True, but they *do* manufacture the workstations - they buy the CPU chips, but they're the ones who put them and the other chips on the CPU boards.