Subject: Re: misc/32482: wtf knows about TLB but not ATC
To: None <email@example.com>
From: Rhialto <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 01/08/2006 23:38:51
On Sun 08 Jan 2006 at 21:10:02 +0000, Rui Paulo wrote:
> Do you happen to have some article stating that TLB is an IBM-ism ?
I'm trying to find a nice old reference, since I seem to remember it was
mentioned when we did IBM 370 systems level programming (later 3070(?)
.. 3090, now Z-series), at the university, but I can't find the term in
the IBM 370 summaries. In those days IBM used different words than
everybody else. Google finds this for me:
"What VT calls "non-root mode", and Pacifica calls "guest mode", is
known as "interpretive execution" (which, by the way, joins a long list
of nuttily technical-sounding, yet completely non-descriptive terms that
I associate with IBM; it's right up there with "translation lookaside
buffer")." IBM articles like
http://www.research.ibm.com/journal/rd/483/slegel.html also speak about
TLBs but that is of course not so much proof.
I did find TLB in Power PC documentation. The PPC shows it IBM
influences by counting the bits in a word from the wrong end, for
instance. It also shows that it is a POWER descendant which is a sort of
RISCified 370, in the use of a link register in the use of subroutine
calls, similar to tha BALR (Branch And Link Register) in the 370. (I
think I saw more signs some years ago when I studied it in more detail)
> -- Rui Paulo
___ Olaf 'Rhialto' Seibert -- You author it, and I'll reader it.
\X/ rhialto/at/xs4all.nl -- Cetero censeo "authored" delendum esse.