[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: VAX architectural critiques - Re: VAX RPB (Restart Parameter Block)
On 07/02/13 1:34 AM, Matt Thomas wrote:
On Feb 6, 2013, at 6:25 PM, Toby Thain wrote:
Least-significant-bit instructions would have seemed useful at the time to implement a
Pascal-ish *Boolean* (*not* a C "boolean" test - C hadn't dominated the
semantics of everything yet).
You are looking through a unix-tinted looking glass which is incorrect.
Remember the VAX was designed to implement VMS and VMS uses the least
significant bit to indicate success / failure on return status, and that
is what the BLB[CS] instruction was designed for.
I'm specifically *not* looking through Unix tinted glasses (perhaps you
missed the "not" in what I wrote) - Since as I said, such an instruction
does not have the semantics of a C logical value (but could of course be
generated by a C optimiser in other circumstances).
Without contradicting in any way your good point about convenient VMS
APIs, the VAX instruction set and data types were certainly designed,
also, with language translators/compilers in mind. ISA support for
"single bit" operations does partly speak to that (as do, in more
obvious ways, many other instructions).
Main Index |
Thread Index |