Electrical Engineering
      and Computer Sciences

Electrical Engineering and Computer Sciences

COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING

UC Berkeley

A Comparison Between the PLM and the MC68020 as Prolog Processors

Yale N. Patt and Chien Chen

EECS Department
University of California, Berkeley
Technical Report No. UCB/CSD-88-397
January 1988

http://www.eecs.berkeley.edu/Pubs/TechRpts/1988/CSD-88-397.pdf

Different execution models for Prolog have different cost/performance benefits and different performance opportunities. In this paper, we treat two implementations of Prolog, a tailored special purpose WAM processor, the Berkeley VLSI-PLM, and an off-the-shelf general purpose part, the MC68020. This work continues along the same vein as the work reported by Mulder and Tick. Fourteen Prolog benchmarks are compiled to WAM code, and their execution times on the VLSI-PLM and the MC68020 are compared and analyzed. Additional experiments are performed to calibrate the calculated MC68020 execution times with actual execution times of a SUN3/260 and a NCR Tower/32. The paper concludes with a number of observations.


BibTeX citation:

@techreport{Patt:CSD-88-397,
    Author = {Patt, Yale N. and Chen, Chien},
    Title = {A Comparison Between the PLM and the MC68020 as Prolog Processors},
    Institution = {EECS Department, University of California, Berkeley},
    Year = {1988},
    Month = {Jan},
    URL = {http://www.eecs.berkeley.edu/Pubs/TechRpts/1988/5868.html},
    Number = {UCB/CSD-88-397},
    Abstract = {Different execution models for Prolog have different cost/performance benefits and different performance opportunities. In this paper, we treat two implementations of Prolog, a tailored special purpose WAM processor, the Berkeley VLSI-PLM, and an off-the-shelf general purpose part, the MC68020. This work continues along the same vein as the work reported by Mulder and Tick. Fourteen Prolog benchmarks are compiled to WAM code, and their execution times on the VLSI-PLM and the MC68020 are compared and analyzed. Additional experiments are performed to calibrate the calculated MC68020 execution times with actual execution times of a SUN3/260 and a NCR Tower/32. The paper concludes with a number of observations.}
}

EndNote citation:

%0 Report
%A Patt, Yale N.
%A Chen, Chien
%T A Comparison Between the PLM and the MC68020 as Prolog Processors
%I EECS Department, University of California, Berkeley
%D 1988
%@ UCB/CSD-88-397
%U http://www.eecs.berkeley.edu/Pubs/TechRpts/1988/5868.html
%F Patt:CSD-88-397