Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > alt.os.development > #9306 > unrolled thread

Processor ISAs

Started by"Bill Cunningham" <billcun-remove-@suddenlink.net>
First post2016-03-24 13:58 -0500
Last post2016-04-02 10:59 +0200
Articles 12 on this page of 32 — 15 participants

Back to article view | Back to alt.os.development

Contents

  Processor ISAs "Bill Cunningham" <billcun-remove-@suddenlink.net> - 2016-03-24 13:58 -0500
    Re: Processor ISAs "Alexei A. Frounze" <alexfrunews@gmail.com> - 2016-03-24 13:50 -0700
      Re: Processor ISAs "Bill Cunningham" <billcun-remove-@suddenlink.net> - 2016-03-24 17:31 -0500
    Re: Processor ISAs Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> - 2016-03-24 19:17 -0400
    Re: Processor ISAs "Benjamin David Lunt" <zfysz@fysnet.net> - 2016-03-24 17:50 -0700
      Re: Processor ISAs "Bill Cunningham" <billcun-remove-@suddenlink.net> - 2016-03-25 13:21 -0500
    Re: Processor ISAs "wolfgang kern" <nowhere@never.at> - 2016-03-25 08:24 +0100
      Re: Processor ISAs Herbert Kleebauer <klee@unibwm.de> - 2016-03-25 12:43 +0100
    Re: Processor ISAs Lucretia <laguest9000@googlemail.com> - 2016-03-28 06:45 -0700
      Re: Processor ISAs Lucretia <laguest9000@googlemail.com> - 2016-03-28 06:54 -0700
        Re: Processor ISAs "wolfgang kern" <nowhere@never.at> - 2016-03-28 22:40 +0200
          Re: Processor ISAs Lucretia <laguest9000@googlemail.com> - 2016-03-29 13:00 -0700
            Re: Processor ISAs "wolfgang kern" <nowhere@never.at> - 2016-03-30 11:17 +0200
        Re: Processor ISAs James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-01 10:15 +0100
          Re: Processor ISAs "wolfgang kern" <nowhere@never.at> - 2016-04-01 13:16 +0200
            Re: Processor ISAs James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-01 22:48 +0100
              OT: processor binary- or pin-compatibility, was [Re: Processor ISAs] Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> - 2016-04-01 21:22 -0400
                Re: OT: processor binary- or pin-compatibility, was [Re: Processor ISAs] Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> - 2016-04-01 21:26 -0400
                Re: OT: processor binary- or pin-compatibility, was [Re: Processor ISAs] Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-04-02 08:46 +0000
                  Re: OT: processor binary- or pin-compatibility, was [Re: Processor Bogus@Embarq.com (Steve) - 2016-04-03 12:31 +0000
                    Re: OT: processor binary- or pin-compatibility, was [Re: Processor Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-04-03 14:44 +0200
                    Re: OT: processor binary- or pin-compatibility, was [Re: Processor Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-04-03 18:53 +0000
                      Re: OT: processor binary- or pin-compatibility, was [Re: Processor Bogus@Embarq.com (Steve) - 2016-04-03 20:07 +0000
                        Re: OT: processor binary- or pin-compatibility, was [Re: Processor Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-04-03 21:18 +0000
                          Re: OT: processor binary- or pin-compatibility, was [Re: Processor "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-04-03 20:20 -0400
                      Re: OT: processor binary- or pin-compatibility, was [Re: Processor "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-04-03 20:17 -0400
                      Re: OT: processor binary- or pin-compatibility, was [Re: Processor pechter@pechter.dyndns.org (William Pechter) - 2016-04-04 15:53 +0000
                Re: processor binary- or pin-compatibility, was [Re: Processor ISAs] "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-04-04 17:24 -0500
                  Re: processor binary- or pin-compatibility, was [Re: Processor ISAs] Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-04-04 23:08 +0000
                  Re: processor binary- or pin-compatibility, was [Re: Processor ISAs] Bogus@Embarq.com (Steve) - 2016-04-05 17:43 +0000
                    Re: processor binary- or pin-compatibility, was [Re: Processor ISAs] Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-04-05 19:15 +0100
              Re: Processor ISAs "wolfgang kern" <nowhere@never.at> - 2016-04-02 10:59 +0200

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#9387 — Re: OT: processor binary- or pin-compatibility, was [Re: Processor

FromMorten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid>
Date2016-04-03 14:44 +0200
SubjectRe: OT: processor binary- or pin-compatibility, was [Re: Processor
Message-ID<7qf7tc-i61.ln1@sambook.reistad.name>
In reply to#9385
In article <c1.2b8.3qdDy3$05p@NOVOSAD3.EMBARQ.COM>,
Steve <Bogus@Embarq.com> wrote:
>Hi,
>
>Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> writes:
>>On Fri, 01 Apr 2016 21:22:31 -0400, Rod Pemberton wrote:
>>
>>> NEC V20 - binary compatible with 80186
>>
>>That sort of depends on whether you limit yourself to the instruction 
>>set. The 80186 had a very different software interface to (e.g.) the 
>>interrupt controller.
>
>   According to "The Undocumented PC", the V20 did not support
>undocumented 80186 opcodes.  It also had a mode where it
>supported 8080 binary code.

Also, it was noticably faster, especially with early multitasking
stuff like QNX and GEM. 

-- mrr

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9388 — Re: OT: processor binary- or pin-compatibility, was [Re: Processor

FromBob Eager <news0006@eager.cx>
Date2016-04-03 18:53 +0000
SubjectRe: OT: processor binary- or pin-compatibility, was [Re: Processor
Message-ID<dmd755Fs66uU1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to#9385
On Sun, 03 Apr 2016 12:31:39 +0000, Steve wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> writes:
>>On Fri, 01 Apr 2016 21:22:31 -0400, Rod Pemberton wrote:
>>
>>> NEC V20 - binary compatible with 80186
>>
>>That sort of depends on whether you limit yourself to the instruction
>>set. The 80186 had a very different software interface to (e.g.) the
>>interrupt controller.
> 
>    According to "The Undocumented PC", the V20 did not support
> undocumented 80186 opcodes.  It also had a mode where it supported 8080
> binary code.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Steve N.

I actually had some V30s on a few PCs (the V30 was to the 8086 what the 
V20 was to the 8088). The V3x was significantly faster than the 808x on 
multiply and divide, etc.



-- 
Using UNIX since v6 (1975)...

Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
 http://www.mirrorservice.org

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9389 — Re: OT: processor binary- or pin-compatibility, was [Re: Processor

FromBogus@Embarq.com (Steve)
Date2016-04-03 20:07 +0000
SubjectRe: OT: processor binary- or pin-compatibility, was [Re: Processor
Message-ID<c1.2b8.3qdR4T$05q@NOVOSAD3.EMBARQ.COM>
In reply to#9388
Hi Bob,

Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> writes:
>On Sun, 03 Apr 2016 12:31:39 +0000, Steve wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>> 
>> Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> writes:
>>>On Fri, 01 Apr 2016 21:22:31 -0400, Rod Pemberton wrote:
>>>
>>>> NEC V20 - binary compatible with 80186
>>>
>>>That sort of depends on whether you limit yourself to the instruction
>>>set. The 80186 had a very different software interface to (e.g.) the
>>>interrupt controller.
>> 
>>    According to "The Undocumented PC", the V20 did not support
>> undocumented 80186 opcodes.  It also had a mode where it supported 8080
>> binary code.
>> 
>> Regards,
>> 
>> Steve N.
>
>I actually had some V30s on a few PCs (the V30 was to the 8086 what the 
>V20 was to the 8088). The V3x was significantly faster than the 808x on 
>multiply and divide, etc.

   Yes I had a Zenith Z-100 and swapped out the 8088 for a while with
a V20.  It seemed to run 10 to 15 percent faster, on average .  It did
not like the 8087 I put in, so I went back to the 8088.

Regards,

Steve N.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9390 — Re: OT: processor binary- or pin-compatibility, was [Re: Processor

FromBob Eager <news0006@eager.cx>
Date2016-04-03 21:18 +0000
SubjectRe: OT: processor binary- or pin-compatibility, was [Re: Processor
Message-ID<dmdfkqFs66uU2@mid.individual.net>
In reply to#9389
On Sun, 03 Apr 2016 20:07:53 +0000, Steve wrote:

> Hi Bob,
> 
> Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> writes:
>>On Sun, 03 Apr 2016 12:31:39 +0000, Steve wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> writes:
>>>>On Fri, 01 Apr 2016 21:22:31 -0400, Rod Pemberton wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> NEC V20 - binary compatible with 80186
>>>>
>>>>That sort of depends on whether you limit yourself to the instruction
>>>>set. The 80186 had a very different software interface to (e.g.) the
>>>>interrupt controller.
>>> 
>>>    According to "The Undocumented PC", the V20 did not support
>>> undocumented 80186 opcodes.  It also had a mode where it supported
>>> 8080 binary code.
>>> 
>>> Regards,
>>> 
>>> Steve N.
>>
>>I actually had some V30s on a few PCs (the V30 was to the 8086 what the
>>V20 was to the 8088). The V3x was significantly faster than the 808x on
>>multiply and divide, etc.
> 
>    Yes I had a Zenith Z-100 and swapped out the 8088 for a while with
> a V20.  It seemed to run 10 to 15 percent faster, on average .  It did
> not like the 8087 I put in, so I went back to the 8088.

I couldn't afford an 8087, so I stuck with the V30!



-- 
Using UNIX since v6 (1975)...

Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
 http://www.mirrorservice.org

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9393 — Re: OT: processor binary- or pin-compatibility, was [Re: Processor

From"J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com>
Date2016-04-03 20:20 -0400
SubjectRe: OT: processor binary- or pin-compatibility, was [Re: Processor
Message-ID<MPG.316b7d3ea66d790698a079@news.eternal-september.org>
In reply to#9390
In article <dmdfkqFs66uU2@mid.individual.net>, news0006@eager.cx says...
> 
> On Sun, 03 Apr 2016 20:07:53 +0000, Steve wrote:
> 
> > Hi Bob,
> > 
> > Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> writes:
> >>On Sun, 03 Apr 2016 12:31:39 +0000, Steve wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hi,
> >>> 
> >>> Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> writes:
> >>>>On Fri, 01 Apr 2016 21:22:31 -0400, Rod Pemberton wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> NEC V20 - binary compatible with 80186
> >>>>
> >>>>That sort of depends on whether you limit yourself to the instruction
> >>>>set. The 80186 had a very different software interface to (e.g.) the
> >>>>interrupt controller.
> >>> 
> >>>    According to "The Undocumented PC", the V20 did not support
> >>> undocumented 80186 opcodes.  It also had a mode where it supported
> >>> 8080 binary code.
> >>> 
> >>> Regards,
> >>> 
> >>> Steve N.
> >>
> >>I actually had some V30s on a few PCs (the V30 was to the 8086 what the
> >>V20 was to the 8088). The V3x was significantly faster than the 808x on
> >>multiply and divide, etc.
> > 
> >    Yes I had a Zenith Z-100 and swapped out the 8088 for a while with
> > a V20.  It seemed to run 10 to 15 percent faster, on average .  It did
> > not like the 8087 I put in, so I went back to the 8088.
> 
> I couldn't afford an 8087, so I stuck with the V30!

Interesting--I didn't have an 8087 in my Zenith, but it worked fine in 
the Genuine IBM PC at work when I added a V20 (note--I _was_ the IT 
department in that company--no approvals needed except for the 
expenditure).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9392 — Re: OT: processor binary- or pin-compatibility, was [Re: Processor

From"J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com>
Date2016-04-03 20:17 -0400
SubjectRe: OT: processor binary- or pin-compatibility, was [Re: Processor
Message-ID<MPG.316b7cb038f251da98a078@news.eternal-september.org>
In reply to#9388
In article <dmd755Fs66uU1@mid.individual.net>, news0006@eager.cx says...
> 
> On Sun, 03 Apr 2016 12:31:39 +0000, Steve wrote:
> 
> > Hi,
> > 
> > Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> writes:
> >>On Fri, 01 Apr 2016 21:22:31 -0400, Rod Pemberton wrote:
> >>
> >>> NEC V20 - binary compatible with 80186
> >>
> >>That sort of depends on whether you limit yourself to the instruction
> >>set. The 80186 had a very different software interface to (e.g.) the
> >>interrupt controller.
> > 
> >    According to "The Undocumented PC", the V20 did not support
> > undocumented 80186 opcodes.  It also had a mode where it supported 8080
> > binary code.
> > 
> > Regards,
> > 
> > Steve N.
> 
> I actually had some V30s on a few PCs (the V30 was to the 8086 what the 
> V20 was to the 8088). The V3x was significantly faster than the 808x on 
> multiply and divide, etc.

I may still have a V30 machine upstairs (I know there are a couple with 
V20s but I don't recall for sure whether the V30 went in one of _my_ 
machines or a machine at work).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9397 — Re: OT: processor binary- or pin-compatibility, was [Re: Processor

Frompechter@pechter.dyndns.org (William Pechter)
Date2016-04-04 15:53 +0000
SubjectRe: OT: processor binary- or pin-compatibility, was [Re: Processor
Message-ID<ndu2l7$r14$1@pechter.eternal-september.org>
In reply to#9388
In article <dmd755Fs66uU1@mid.individual.net>,
Bob Eager  <news0006@eager.cx> wrote:
>On Sun, 03 Apr 2016 12:31:39 +0000, Steve wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>> 
>> Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> writes:
>>>On Fri, 01 Apr 2016 21:22:31 -0400, Rod Pemberton wrote:
>>>
>>>> NEC V20 - binary compatible with 80186
>>>
>>>That sort of depends on whether you limit yourself to the instruction
>>>set. The 80186 had a very different software interface to (e.g.) the
>>>interrupt controller.
>> 
>>    According to "The Undocumented PC", the V20 did not support
>> undocumented 80186 opcodes.  It also had a mode where it supported 8080
>> binary code.
>> 
>> Regards,
>> 
>> Steve N.
>
>I actually had some V30s on a few PCs (the V30 was to the 8086 what the 
>V20 was to the 8088). The V3x was significantly faster than the 808x on 
>multiply and divide, etc.
>
>
>
>-- 
>Using UNIX since v6 (1975)...
>
>Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
> http://www.mirrorservice.org

I used the V30 in my AT&T 6300 (Olivetti M24?) and it was pretty amazing how
well the box compared with a 286 on many things...  Some instructions seemed
to be much faster and it wasn't half bad with Xenix-86 either.

Too bad that the they didn't do a 286 look alike as a swap into the AT Clone
motherboards with the V20/30 8080 instructions.

Bill


-- 
-- 
Digital had it then.  Don't you wish you could buy it now!
pechter-at-gmail.com  http://xkcd.com/705/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9400 — Re: processor binary- or pin-compatibility, was [Re: Processor ISAs]

From"Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com>
Date2016-04-04 17:24 -0500
SubjectRe: processor binary- or pin-compatibility, was [Re: Processor ISAs]
Message-ID<ndupd5$5d1$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to#9369
"Rod Pemberton" <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> wrote in message 
news:20160401212231.1c439bc6@_...
>
>           [snip...]                 [snip...]                   [snip...]
>
> Z80 - binary compatible with 8080

The Z80 is *not* strictly "binary compatible" with the 8080.  There is some 
slight difference in the way the parity flag is used in some compare 
instructions, and also some incompatibility with the half-carry flag. 
Everywhere I look on the 'net, it seems people are trying to plow this 
knowledge under and ignore it.

-- 

numerist at aquaporin4 dot com

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9402 — Re: processor binary- or pin-compatibility, was [Re: Processor ISAs]

FromBob Eager <news0006@eager.cx>
Date2016-04-04 23:08 +0000
SubjectRe: processor binary- or pin-compatibility, was [Re: Processor ISAs]
Message-ID<dmgafnFrjkoU3@mid.individual.net>
In reply to#9400
On Mon, 04 Apr 2016 17:24:28 -0500, Charles Richmond wrote:

> "Rod Pemberton" <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> wrote in message
> news:20160401212231.1c439bc6@_...
>>
>>           [snip...]                 [snip...]                  
>>           [snip...]
>>
>> Z80 - binary compatible with 8080
> 
> The Z80 is *not* strictly "binary compatible" with the 8080.  There is
> some slight difference in the way the parity flag is used in some
> compare instructions, and also some incompatibility with the half-carry
> flag. Everywhere I look on the 'net, it seems people are trying to plow
> this knowledge under and ignore it.

Very few things are 100% binary compatible. Even the 8088 was different 
to the 8086 - it was easy to write a program to tell them apart.




-- 
Using UNIX since v6 (1975)...

Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
 http://www.mirrorservice.org

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9404 — Re: processor binary- or pin-compatibility, was [Re: Processor ISAs]

FromBogus@Embarq.com (Steve)
Date2016-04-05 17:43 +0000
SubjectRe: processor binary- or pin-compatibility, was [Re: Processor ISAs]
Message-ID<c1.2b8.3qfbn2$05r@NOVOSAD3.EMBARQ.COM>
In reply to#9400
Hi,

 "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> writes:
>"Rod Pemberton" <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> wrote in message 
>news:20160401212231.1c439bc6@_...
>>
>>           [snip...]                 [snip...]                   [snip...]
>>
>> Z80 - binary compatible with 8080
>
>The Z80 is *not* strictly "binary compatible" with the 8080.  There is some 
>slight difference in the way the parity flag is used in some compare 
>instructions, and also some incompatibility with the half-carry flag. 
>Everywhere I look on the 'net, it seems people are trying to plow this 
>knowledge under and ignore it.

   Well if the Z80 runs your 8080 operating system, editor,  games,
assembler, and other programs, perhaps it is compatible enough to
ignore the differences.  Or at least to forget about them.

Regards,

Steve N.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9405 — Re: processor binary- or pin-compatibility, was [Re: Processor ISAs]

FromAhem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net>
Date2016-04-05 19:15 +0100
SubjectRe: processor binary- or pin-compatibility, was [Re: Processor ISAs]
Message-ID<20160405191505.3b9d78b93f580beed65481ac@eircom.net>
In reply to#9404
On Tue, 05 Apr 2016 17:43:34 GMT
Bogus@Embarq.com (Steve) wrote:

> Hi,
> 
>  "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> writes:
> >"Rod Pemberton" <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> wrote in message 
> >news:20160401212231.1c439bc6@_...
> >>
> >>           [snip...]                 [snip...]
> >> [snip...]
> >>
> >> Z80 - binary compatible with 8080
> >
> >The Z80 is *not* strictly "binary compatible" with the 8080.  There is
> >some slight difference in the way the parity flag is used in some
> >compare instructions, and also some incompatibility with the half-carry
> >flag. Everywhere I look on the 'net, it seems people are trying to plow
> >this knowledge under and ignore it.
> 
>    Well if the Z80 runs your 8080 operating system, editor,  games,
> assembler, and other programs, perhaps it is compatible enough to
> ignore the differences.  Or at least to forget about them.

	It was a rare program that depended on the difference, and anyone
sane wrote for the intersection knowing that there were a lot more Z80
machines than 8080 but you couldn't rule out the latter.

-- 
Steve O'Hara-Smith                          |   Directable Mirror Arrays
C:>WIN                                      | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins.                |    licences available see
You lose and Bill collects.                 |    http://www.sohara.org/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9374

From"wolfgang kern" <nowhere@never.at>
Date2016-04-02 10:59 +0200
Message-ID<ndo1sl$hgj$1@gioia.aioe.org>
In reply to#9361
James Harris wrote:

>>> Lucretia wrote:
>>> ...
>>>> As for Z80, it was designed to be binary compatible with 8086 so can
>>>> run CP/M binaries meant for that processor.

>>> Do you mean the Z80 was compatible with the 8080 (not the 8086)?

>> they aren't compatible either...
 
> I wrote from memory. But Wikipedia seems to agree:
 
> Faggin designed the instruction set to be binary compatible with the 
> Intel 8080[6][7] so that most 8080 code, notably the CP/M operating 
> system and Intel's PL/M compiler for 8080 (as well as its generated 
> code), would run unmodified on the new Z80 CPU.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zilog_Z80

Thanks. Yes, I checked my old manuals from 1976 and found many 8080 
opcodes identical to the Z80 ones, but not all of them.

So some 8080 code would run on Z80, while the opposite might not work 
because Z-80 got much more instructions.
__
wolfgang

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | alt.os.development

csiph-web