Path: ...!news.mixmin.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Michael S Newsgroups: comp.arch Subject: Re: except what, is Vax addressing sane today Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2024 11:00:20 +0300 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 29 Message-ID: <20240924110020.000073a3@yahoo.com> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Injection-Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2024 09:59:53 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="b1fade10e8a2bab21410dad877002ecd"; logging-data="3291197"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+bYAVeaccwy4kPiutegKJSaFNB6j0ZsOc=" Cancel-Lock: sha1:T+NWnJwXIP0/eSJIfRmGuEk6Vo0= X-Newsreader: Claws Mail 3.19.1 (GTK+ 2.24.33; x86_64-w64-mingw32) Bytes: 2260 On Tue, 24 Sep 2024 00:41:39 -0000 (UTC) Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: > On Sun, 22 Sep 2024 09:14:04 -0700, Lars Poulsen wrote: >=20 > > From a programmer's perspective, VAX exception handling was very > > nice. It may have been high overhead, though. =20 >=20 > Very high overhead. But it was also language-independent, and > integrated into the procedure-calling convention, which also managed > to be language- independent. >=20 > There is an internal memo on Bitsavers somewhere, critiquing a > proposal to adopt the MIPS architecture (which DEC did, for just one > machine, the DECstation 3000 if I recall rightly),=20 Much more than one machine. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DECstation 4 ranges, 13 models. DEC was quite successful both with MIPS and with x86. I'd guess, their CPU designers didn't like it. > and one of the > points against MIPS was that it didn=E2=80=99t have language-independent > exception handling. But then no other architecture, before the VAX or > since, has been able to do that.