[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Mips project Go or Wait?

To: riscy@pyramid.com
Subject: Re: Mips project Go or Wait?
From: Tommy Thorn <tthorn@daimi.aau.dk>
Date: Thu, 5 Aug 1993 18:37:40 +0200
Reply-to: Tommy.Thorn@daimi.aau.dk
Reply-to: riscy@pyramid.com
Sender: owner-riscy@pyramid.com
   From: Bill Broadley <broadley@neurocog.lrdc.pitt.edu>
   Date: Wed, 4 Aug 1993 18:08:43 -0500 (EDT)
   Sender: owner-riscy@pyramid.com

   Well I personally prefer the powerpc.  It run's gcc, gets more done per Mhz,
   very elegant, reasonably priced, and has the largest onchip cache.  But the 
   simple fact that there exists a mips 4000 board design outweighs any 
   advantages the powerpc has over the mips 4000 series.  Unless we find
   a ready to use powerpc motherboard design of course.

My *personal* *taste* for the processors ranks Alpha, R4000, and
PowerPC, in this order, but that irrelevant of course. Why do you keep
pointing out that gcc exits for the powerpc, when the same is the case
for the mips?

In fact setting up a gas+binutils+gcc cross compilation enviroment +
spim (mips 3000 simulator) makes it possible to experiment with the
mips architechure already today.

I've tried to get information on the R4000 series the last two days,
but to no avail. Whats the difference from a R3000 (from a programming
view, and yes, I know it's 64 bit ;^)? Can anyone point me to

Tommy.Thorn@daimi.aau.dk | If you use a PC consider upgrading to a real OS.
------------------------ | Linux is Posix (Unix). It has GCC,Emacs,X11,TCP,NFS,
*L*I*N*U*X* Fanatic (tm) | Doc,Interviews,Prolog...(you name it) and it's free!

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>