Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.forth > #49056
| From | Cecil Bayona <cbayona@cbayona.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.forth |
| Subject | Re: Forth coding style vs "Algol et al" coding style |
| Date | 2016-07-11 13:32 -0500 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <nm0onc$saq$1@dont-email.me> (permalink) |
| References | (4 earlier) <gaydnaCaveOqOR7KnZ2dnUU7-amdnZ2d@supernews.com> <801766f5-2bdc-478c-ae9c-7b25d208c85c@googlegroups.com> <YL-dna0VsKtXUB7KnZ2dnUU7-QHNnZ2d@supernews.com> <nm0k90$ak1$1@dont-email.me> <b8fbea90-24bf-4d1d-bc9c-3428c71e0402@googlegroups.com> |
On 7/11/2016 12:38 PM, Mark Wills wrote: > On Monday, 11 July 2016 18:16:17 UTC+1, Cecil - k5nwa wrote: >> On 7/11/2016 11:48 AM, Andrew Haley wrote: >>> Michael Barry <barrym95838@yahoo.com> wrote: >>> >>>> I bought a book about 35 years ago that sampled several different 16-bit >>>> microprocessors, giving a large chapter to each one and providing >>>> architecture info and assembly code examples. I think that it covered >>>> the 8086, 68000, 16000 (later renamed to 32000), 9900, and pdp-11. >>> >>> Interesting. I was thinking it must have been the Osborne 16-bit >>> book, but that didn't cover the PDP-11. >>> >>>> I was reading the chapter on the pdp-11, and had reached the detailed >>>> description of the addressing modes. My friend was sitting nearby, and >>>> suddenly asked if I was crying. I actually was, a little bit, proving >>>> beyond a shadow of a doubt that I was a true nerd. >>> >>> Yep. :-) >>> >>> Andrew. >>> >> I been playing with FPGAs to create, Forth processors, on my list of >> items to create once I am more familiar with the VHDL software is to >> create a PDP11 from scratch, the reason it's beautiful instruction set. >> Funny thing is that with the FPGA one can create a PDP11 that is way >> faster than the original models. >> >> The TI 99XX family, and Nova mini will follow shortly after the PDP11 is >> working. These processors have a very nice architecture, but I would >> build the TI99xx without some of the silly limitations put on it with >> the TI 9900 personal computers such as having 8 bit limited memory, and >> of course a much faster CPU clock. >> >> -- >> Cecil - k5nwa > > Don't look at the TI-99/4A - it has an awful architecture! The 9900 was put > in the 4A at the last minute. It should never have been in there. The mother > board is made for a processor with an 8 bit data bus, so data has to be pre- > assembled from two seperate 8 bit reads/writes and presented to the 9900 as > a complete 16-bit word. It's just awful! > > The 9900 processor itself is fine, though it needs a 4 phase clock. Later > versions (9995) just had a single phase clock. The 9995 has an 8 bit databus > but is still more than twice as fast as a 9900 (and you can over clock them, > too - I've had them up past 12 megahertz). It has some extra instructions, > (signed divide and multiply) 256 bytes of internal ram, internal timers, and > instruction pre-fetch. If you're going to re-create any of them in VHDL, then > the 9995 is the one to go for, as it only needs 40 pins. > > Actually, I have a VHDL implementation of it somewhere. > I call those features silly, so I would not proceed to add them in. They crippled the performance of the machine, eventually I created my own board with 16 bit fast RAM, I liked that CPU. Like many things in electronics, performance and easy of use are only one small part of the equation, unfortunately marketing has a much bigger impact on which CPUs make it or not. Back in the early 70s I designed my own CPU and built it, and one of the unusual feature of it was a register bank, dedicated high speed RAM that would be your register bank, you could switch the entire set for another in one instruction, fast for answering interrupts. One day I would like to go back to it and replicate it in an FPGA, it would be much faster, and a heck of a lot easier to make changes. -- Cecil - k5nwa
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 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 Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2016-07-26 03:34 -0500
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 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