4 ms·
PA-RISC seemed fairly neat from the somewhat limited information you can find online (there’s a 1.1 and 2.0 ISA manual on kernel.org). Where there major issues
by formerly_proven 4y ago
PA-RISC seemed fairly neat from the somewhat limited information you can find online (there’s a 1.1 and 2.0 ISA manual on kernel.org). Where there major issues with the ISA? Killing your entire product line and starting over of course rarely worked.
- rsaxvc 4y agoThe PA-RISC 1.1 ISA encoded specific implementation details that didn't age well, like the branch delay slot and instruction address queues. And required in-order memory accesses, because there wasn't support for cache coherent IO.
- ghaff 4y agoAnd, at a higher level, Unix vendor-specific processor designs were on the way out. Designing and manufacturing a processor just for your relatively low volumes in the scheme of things Unix systems was just way too expensive. One of the other problems with Itanium was that it was supposed to be an "industry standard" 64-bit processor. But Intel and HP were never quite able to square that with a situation where HP at least saw themselves as more equal than others given their role in the design.
- pjmlp 4y agoHP-UX 11 was one of the UNIXes I worked on (1999 - 2002, 2005), and the only issue I had, at least during the first employer was their ongoing transition to 64 bits, and the C compiler we had available (aC) was a mix of K&R C with some ISO/ANSI C compliance. I don't recall any issues with the ISA, and we really liked using its early container capabilities (HP Vault).