>(after I wrote)

>> The book "Computer Architecture: Concepts and Evolution" by
>> Blaauw and Brooks has many descriptions on how instructions got
>> to be the way they did.

>> The book covers a wide variety of machines, though S/360 is
>> a favorite example.  (Blaauw was the main designer of S/360,
>> so it isn't so surprising.)

>> There is a small description of EDIT in section 5.1.3.
>> They trace back to "Store for Print" on the 702.
>> Then explain that EDIT

>The instruction is ED, not EDIT,; its companion is EDMK.

You want to argue with Blaauw on the name of an S/360 instruction?

The instruction is EDIT, the assembler nmemonic is ED.

>> is rarely used by COBOL or Fortran
>> for print conversions,

>That's probably because the instruction was optional
>on the small early models of S/360
>and the software was written to use basic instructions.

>Nevertheless, there's no reason for not using it,
>because the small machines that didn't have those instructions
>have long since passed to computer heaven.

For hand coded assembler, it isn't bad, but for high-level
languages it is easier to write a software loop than to
conform to the instruction.

Much of S/360, as with VAX, was designed around assembler
programmers.  Later it was found that compilers only generated
a small fraction of the instruction set on most machines.

>That said, I understand that IBM 360 compilers didn't use TRT,
>which IIRC was a standard instruction.

>BTW, EDMK was used for all decimal output in the optimising
>XPL compiler.

>> and that it is best that it should be left out of instruction sets.

>A bad recommendation, because so much is done by ED and EDMK,
>and with little effort and even less overhead compared with alternatives.

A reasonable cost/benefit analysis of the actual use, done some
years later.

>> If you like asking questions like that, especially for a variety
>> of different machines, you should get the book.

>I wouldn't bother, if that is the level of its advice.

If you don't believe Blaauw regarding S/360, then who do you believe?

-- glen

Reply via email to