The following reply was made to PR misc/32482; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: Rhialto <rhialto@falu.nl>
To: gnats-bugs@netbsd.org
Cc: misc-bug-people@netbsd.org, gnats-admin@netbsd.org,
	netbsd-bugs@netbsd.org, rhialto@falu.nl
Subject: Re: misc/32482: wtf knows about TLB but not ATC
Date: Sun, 8 Jan 2006 23:38:51 +0100

 On Sun 08 Jan 2006 at 21:10:02 +0000, Rui Paulo wrote:
 >  Do you happen to have some article stating that TLB is an IBM-ism ?
 
 I'm trying to find a nice old reference, since I seem to remember it was
 mentioned when we did IBM 370 systems level programming (later 3070(?)
 .. 3090, now Z-series), at the university, but I can't find the term in
 the IBM 370 summaries. In those days IBM used different words than
 everybody else. Google finds this for me:
 http://x86vmm.blogspot.com/2005/12/standing-on-shoulders-of-giants.html
 "What VT calls "non-root mode", and Pacifica calls "guest mode", is
 known as "interpretive execution" (which, by the way, joins a long list
 of nuttily technical-sounding, yet completely non-descriptive terms that
 I associate with IBM; it's right up there with "translation lookaside
 buffer")." IBM articles like
 http://www.research.ibm.com/journal/rd/483/slegel.html also speak about
 TLBs but that is of course not so much proof.
 
 I did find TLB in Power PC documentation. The PPC shows it IBM
 influences by counting the bits in a word from the wrong end, for
 instance. It also shows that it is a POWER descendant which is a sort of
 RISCified 370, in the use of a link register in the use of subroutine
 calls, similar to tha BALR (Branch And Link Register) in the 370. (I
 think I saw more signs some years ago when I studied it in more detail)
 
 >  		-- Rui Paulo
 -Olaf.
 -- 
 ___ Olaf 'Rhialto' Seibert      -- You author it, and I'll reader it.
 \X/ rhialto/at/xs4all.nl        -- Cetero censeo "authored" delendum esse.