mash@mips.COM (John Mashey) (08/07/88)
In article <43@cybaswan.UUCP> eeartym@cybaswan.UUCP (Dr R.Artym eleceng ) writes: >Comp.arch has got out of hand, I think. Is there any support for splitting >it into 4 or 5 topical subgroups representing the bulk of traffic over the >last few months? The present flat structure was OK a year or so back, but >the great increase in traffic makes it quite unwieldy now. Actually, what it needs is to get out of the summer doldrums. It isn't so much the volume, as that much of the discussion has gotten a bit repetitive, and strayed away from computer architecture issues. Suggestion: please read the TOCS that just came out. I've only had a chance to read two of the articles, but they were definitely interesting. One is an article on the Stanford MIPS chip, with a lot of instruction-set usage; the other is an article on why the 432 was slow, and perhaps did not have to be quite so. Betweeen the two, there are plenty of points to stir up discussion on meaty issues. -- -john mashey DISCLAIMER: <generic disclaimer, I speak for me only, etc> UUCP: {ames,decwrl,prls,pyramid}!mips!mash OR mash@mips.com DDD: 408-991-0253 or 408-720-1700, x253 USPS: MIPS Computer Systems, 930 E. Arques, Sunnyvale, CA 94086