Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.forth > #50405
| From | anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.forth |
| Subject | Re: Forth coding style vs "Algol et al" coding style |
| Date | 2016-08-22 12:51 +0000 |
| Organization | Institut fuer Computersprachen, Technische Universitaet Wien |
| Message-ID | <2016Aug22.145120@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> (permalink) |
| References | (5 earlier) <81c72add-bac3-4c44-a873-0d7d71d9d80e@googlegroups.com> <nn6bhm$pju$1@dont-email.me> <2016Jul26.185140@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> <nn87vf$d1$3@dont-email.me> <npde2e$vqt$5@dont-email.me> |
Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> writes:
>But Motorola showed that when they design RISCs their way, they aren't
>good designs. They ended up using an architecture from IBM instead...
Having used 88k-based machines, I found the architecture fine. The
88100 implementation did not quite reach the speeds of contemporary
MIPSes, but was not far behind. It did have a problem with market
acceptance, as it came out 2 years after MIPS, HPPA, and SPARC; Data
General was probably the biggest customer. There were supposedly
plans by Apollo, NeXT, and Apple, to switch to the 88000, but Apollo
rolled their own architecture (somewhere I read that they did it
because the 88100 was late), and got bought by HP, who had their own
RISC architecture (HPPA); NeXT was bought by Apple, and Apple entered
the AIM alliance with IBM and Motorola.
They did have a problem with their next implementation, the 88110,
which was late and not particularly fast compared to the competition
(introduced at 50MHz in 1992; in the same year the Alpha 21064 was
introduced with 150-200MHz). They also had similar problems with the
68060 (introduced at 50MHz in 1994).
So given the low market share of the 88k, and the uncompetetive
implementation, it's pretty logical that, when Motorola entered the
AIM alliance, they abandoned the 88k architecture for the PowerPC
architecture, for which a relatively fast single-chip implementation
already existed. They did contribute the 88110 bus to the PowerPC,
though.
>The good thing about a CISC CPU and design-by-committee is that the
>committee works on the CISC parts, which are implemented in microcode.
>The actual inner working is not done by the committee. If you let them
>design a RISC, it ends up as complex as the CISC, but you can't implement
>the complexity in microcode.
Did not help the 68060, which was two years later and not any faster
than the 88110.
>All the WIBNI features that can easily be
>shoved into one or the other corner of the microcode ROM now need full
>attention.
An example of the approach you seem may be advocating is the
Williamette/Northwood (Pentium 4): It had a very fast integer core
that could do relatively little; e.g., it could not shift or multiply,
and it shipped data over to the FPU for these WIBNI features.
However, it seems that Intel is slowly making the neglected features
fast; e.g,., in the Wolfdale (45nm Core 2 Duo), a cache-line crossing
load takes 13 cycles, and a page-crossing memory load takes 169 cycles
<2015Mar31.135537@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at>, while these take 1.98
and 31 cycles, respectively, on an Ivy Bridge. It seems to me that
the performance gains that we have seen from Intel in recent years
are, for a good part due to improving the performance of such
neglected features.
But then, unaligned access is not WIBNI: Stephen Pelc himself sees a
need for that, so, following from the definition of "WIBNI", it is not
WIBNI.
- anton
--
M. Anton Ertl http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/home.html
comp.lang.forth FAQs: http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/forth/faq/toc.html
New standard: http://www.forth200x.org/forth200x.html
EuroForth 2016: http://www.euroforth.org/ef16/
Back to comp.lang.forth | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Forth coding style vs "Algol et al" coding style foxaudioresearch@gmail.com - 2016-07-08 17:44 -0700
Re: Forth coding style vs "Algol et al" coding style "WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-09 04:27 +0000
Re: Forth coding style vs "Algol et al" coding style humptydumpty <ouatubi@gmail.com> - 2016-07-09 10:30 -0700
Re: Forth coding style vs "Algol et al" coding style Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2016-07-09 21:56 -0700
Re: Forth coding style vs "Algol et al" coding style mhx@iae.nl - 2016-07-10 00:30 -0700
Re: Forth coding style vs "Algol et al" coding style mhx@iae.nl - 2016-07-10 00:34 -0700
Re: Forth coding style vs "Algol et al" coding style foxaudioresearch@gmail.com - 2016-07-10 09:10 -0700
Re: Forth coding style vs "Algol et al" coding style endlessboomcapitalism@gmail.com - 2016-07-12 18:55 -0700
Re: Forth coding style vs "Algol et al" coding style Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2016-07-10 01:39 -0700
Re: Forth coding style vs "Algol et al" coding style foxaudioresearch@gmail.com - 2016-07-10 08:50 -0700
Re: Forth coding style vs "Algol et al" coding style Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2016-07-10 15:00 -0700
Re: Forth coding style vs "Algol et al" coding style rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-10 22:53 -0400
Re: Forth coding style vs "Algol et al" coding style Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2016-07-11 01:59 -0700
Re: Forth coding style vs "Algol et al" coding style rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-11 09:44 -0400
Re: Forth coding style vs "Algol et al" coding style Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2016-07-11 10:51 -0700
Re: Forth coding style vs "Algol et al" coding style rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-11 15:26 -0400
Re: Forth coding style vs "Algol et al" coding style Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2016-07-12 15:18 -0700
Re: Forth coding style vs "Algol et al" coding style foxaudioresearch@gmail.com - 2016-07-25 19:56 -0700
Re: Forth coding style vs "Algol et al" coding style rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-25 23:13 -0400
Re: Forth coding style vs "Algol et al" coding style jim.brakefield@ieee.org - 2016-07-26 07:34 -0700
Re: Forth coding style vs "Algol et al" coding style rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-26 11:23 -0400
Re: Forth coding style vs "Algol et al" coding style jim.brakefield@ieee.org - 2016-07-26 13:18 -0700
Re: Forth coding style vs "Algol et al" coding style rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-26 18:14 -0400
Re: Forth coding style vs "Algol et al" coding style Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2016-07-27 02:43 -0700
Re: Forth coding style vs "Algol et al" coding style rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-27 10:24 -0400
Re: Forth coding style vs "Algol et al" coding style Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2016-07-27 02:46 -0700
Re: Forth coding style vs "Algol et al" coding style rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-27 10:26 -0400
Re: Forth coding style vs "Algol et al" coding style Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2016-07-27 02:53 -0700
Re: Forth coding style vs "Algol et al" coding style foxaudioresearch@gmail.com - 2016-07-27 08:32 -0700
Re: Forth coding style vs "Algol et al" coding style foxaudioresearch@gmail.com - 2016-07-27 09:04 -0700
Re: Forth coding style vs "Algol et al" coding style Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2016-07-28 02:05 -0700
Re: Forth coding style vs "Algol et al" coding style foxaudioresearch@gmail.com - 2016-07-28 06:27 -0700
Re: Forth coding style vs "Algol et al" coding style Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2016-07-29 03:01 -0700
Re: Forth coding style vs "Algol et al" coding style rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-30 02:28 -0400
Re: Forth coding style vs "Algol et al" coding style rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-11 13:05 -0400
Re: Forth coding style vs "Algol et al" coding style Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2016-07-11 10:47 -0700
Re: Forth coding style vs "Algol et al" coding style Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2016-07-11 08:50 -0500
Re: Forth coding style vs "Algol et al" coding style Michael Barry <barrym95838@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-11 08:23 -0700
Re: Forth coding style vs "Algol et al" coding style Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2016-07-11 11:48 -0500
Re: Forth coding style vs "Algol et al" coding style Cecil Bayona <cbayona@cbayona.com> - 2016-07-11 12:16 -0500
Re: Forth coding style vs "Algol et al" coding style Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2016-07-11 10:38 -0700
Re: Forth coding style vs "Algol et al" coding style Cecil Bayona <cbayona@cbayona.com> - 2016-07-11 13:32 -0500
Re: Forth coding style vs "Algol et al" coding style Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2016-07-11 12:45 -0500
Re: Forth coding style vs "Algol et al" coding style Brad Eckert <hwfwguy@gmail.com> - 2016-07-11 11:49 -0700
Re: Forth coding style vs "Algol et al" coding style Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2016-07-12 05:02 -0500
Re: Forth coding style vs "Algol et al" coding style Michael Barry <barrym95838@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-11 14:22 -0700
Re: Forth coding style vs "Algol et al" coding style Cecil Bayona <cbayona@cbayona.com> - 2016-07-11 16:31 -0500
Re: Forth coding style vs "Algol et al" coding style rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-12 15:31 -0400
Re: Forth coding style vs "Algol et al" coding style lawrencedo99@gmail.com - 2016-07-12 15:55 -0700
Re: Forth coding style vs "Algol et al" coding style rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-25 22:48 -0400
Re: Forth coding style vs "Algol et al" coding style lawrencedo99@gmail.com - 2016-08-10 01:54 -0700
Re: Forth coding style vs "Algol et al" coding style rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-21 19:32 -0400
Re: Forth coding style vs "Algol et al" coding style lawrencedo99@gmail.com - 2016-08-28 22:55 -0700
Re: Forth coding style vs "Algol et al" coding style hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-08-29 00:34 -0700
Re: Forth coding style vs "Algol et al" coding style Howerd <howerdo@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-07-11 11:58 -0700
Re: Forth coding style vs "Algol et al" coding style lawrencedo99@gmail.com - 2016-07-12 15:59 -0700
Re: Forth coding style vs "Algol et al" coding style Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2016-07-26 00:40 +0000
Re: Forth coding style vs "Algol et al" coding style "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2016-07-25 21:16 -1000
Re: Forth coding style vs "Algol et al" coding style Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2016-08-21 23:04 +0000
Re: Forth coding style vs "Algol et al" coding style Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2016-07-26 03:34 -0500
Re: Forth coding style vs "Algol et al" coding style Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2016-08-21 23:13 +0000
Re: Forth coding style vs "Algol et al" coding style anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2016-07-26 16:51 +0000
Re: Forth coding style vs "Algol et al" coding style rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-26 13:51 -0400
Re: Forth coding style vs "Algol et al" coding style Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2016-08-21 23:38 +0000
Re: Forth coding style vs "Algol et al" coding style anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2016-08-22 12:51 +0000
Re: Forth coding style vs "Algol et al" coding style rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-25 22:50 -0400
Re: Forth coding style vs "Algol et al" coding style Brad Eckert <hwfwguy@gmail.com> - 2016-07-26 16:32 -0700
Re: Forth coding style vs "Algol et al" coding style rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-27 10:19 -0400
Re: Forth coding style vs "Algol et al" coding style "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2016-07-27 09:05 -1000
Re: Forth coding style vs "Algol et al" coding style lawrencedo99@gmail.com - 2016-07-12 15:51 -0700
Re: Forth coding style vs "Algol et al" coding style Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2016-07-14 03:34 -0700
Re: Forth coding style vs "Algol et al" coding style rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-25 22:51 -0400
Re: Forth coding style vs "Algol et al" coding style Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2016-07-11 01:56 -0700
Re: Forth coding style vs "Algol et al" coding style foxaudioresearch@gmail.com - 2016-07-11 08:03 -0700
csiph-web