Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.forth > #18710 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Peter Jakacki <peterjakacki@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2013-01-13 06:37 +0000 |
| Last post | 2013-01-13 12:44 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 100 — 35 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.forth
Parallax Propeller Peter Jakacki <peterjakacki@gmail.com> - 2013-01-13 06:37 +0000
Re: Parallax Propeller MK <mk@nospam.co.uk> - 2013-01-13 10:26 +0000
Re: Parallax Propeller Peter Jakacki <peterjakacki@gmail.com> - 2013-01-13 12:22 +0000
Re: Parallax Propeller Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2013-01-13 07:24 -0600
Re: Parallax Propeller Peter Jakacki <peterjakacki@gmail.com> - 2013-01-13 13:55 +0000
Re: Parallax Propeller mhx@iae.nl (Marcel Hendrix) - 2013-01-13 17:13 +0200
Re: Parallax Propeller Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2013-01-16 06:23 -0600
Re: Parallax Propeller Peter Jakacki <peterjakacki@gmail.com> - 2013-01-16 15:01 +0000
Re: Parallax Propeller Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2013-01-16 09:12 -0600
Re: Parallax Propeller Peter Jakacki <peterjakacki@gmail.com> - 2013-01-16 15:36 +0000
Re: Parallax Propeller Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2013-01-16 10:59 -0600
Re: Parallax Propeller Peter Jakacki <peterjakacki@gmail.com> - 2013-01-16 23:38 +0000
Re: Parallax Propeller Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2013-01-17 04:04 -0600
Re: Parallax Propeller Mark Wills <forthfreak@gmail.com> - 2013-01-17 04:52 -0800
Re: Parallax Propeller Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2013-01-24 22:48 -0800
Re: Parallax Propeller Mark Wills <forthfreak@gmail.com> - 2013-01-24 23:10 -0800
Re: Parallax Propeller Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2013-01-28 17:42 -0800
Re: Parallax Propeller "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm> - 2013-02-05 06:05 -0500
Re: Parallax Propeller Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2013-02-05 08:41 -0600
Re: Parallax Propeller Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2013-02-05 10:21 -0800
Re: Parallax Propeller Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2013-02-05 21:37 +0100
Re: Parallax Propeller "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2013-02-05 10:44 -1000
Re: Parallax Propeller Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2013-02-05 15:52 -0600
Re: Parallax Propeller Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2013-02-06 00:29 -0800
Re: Parallax Propeller Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2013-02-06 00:31 -0800
Re: Parallax Propeller Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2013-02-06 19:46 +0100
Re: Parallax Propeller Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2013-02-09 00:11 -0800
Re: Parallax Propeller anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2013-02-09 10:25 +0000
Re: Parallax Propeller Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2013-02-06 18:26 -0800
Re: Parallax Propeller Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2013-02-05 15:07 -0800
Re: Parallax Propeller Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2013-02-05 15:49 -0800
Re: Parallax Propeller "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm> - 2013-02-05 06:04 -0500
Re: Parallax Propeller Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2013-02-05 15:21 -0800
Re: Parallax Propeller rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2013-01-16 18:09 -0500
Re: Parallax Propeller Ben Bradley <ben_u_bradley@etcmail.com> - 2013-01-18 21:07 -0500
Re: Parallax Propeller "Paul E. Bennett" <Paul_E.Bennett@topmail.co.uk> - 2013-01-19 10:06 +0000
Re: Parallax Propeller Arlet Ottens <usenet+5@c-scape.nl> - 2013-01-19 13:04 +0100
Re: Parallax Propeller "A. K." <akk@nospam.org> - 2013-01-19 13:22 +0100
Re: Parallax Propeller Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2013-01-19 13:38 +0100
Re: Parallax Propeller David Brown <david.brown@removethis.hesbynett.no> - 2013-01-19 17:12 +0100
Re: Parallax Propeller albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2013-01-19 16:45 +0000
Re: Parallax Propeller David Brown <david.brown@removethis.hesbynett.no> - 2013-01-20 17:49 +0100
Re: Parallax Propeller upsidedown@downunder.com - 2013-01-19 20:54 +0200
Re: Parallax Propeller Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2013-01-19 11:04 -0800
Re: Parallax Propeller upsidedown@downunder.com - 2013-01-19 23:05 +0200
Re: Parallax Propeller Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-01-20 01:05 -0800
Re: Parallax Propeller Arlet Ottens <usenet+5@c-scape.nl> - 2013-01-20 12:11 +0100
Re: Parallax Propeller upsidedown@downunder.com - 2013-01-20 13:53 +0200
Re: Parallax Propeller upsidedown@downunder.com - 2013-01-20 13:26 +0200
Re: Parallax Propeller Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2013-01-19 14:23 -0600
Re: Parallax Propeller Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2013-01-19 14:18 -0600
Re: Parallax Propeller David Brown <david.brown@removethis.hesbynett.no> - 2013-01-20 20:32 +0100
Re: Parallax Propeller Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2013-01-20 18:08 -0600
Re: Parallax Propeller Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2013-01-20 17:12 -0500
Re: Parallax Propeller Mel Wilson <mwilson@the-wire.com> - 2013-01-20 19:19 -0500
Re: Parallax Propeller Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2013-01-20 21:12 -0500
Re: Parallax Propeller David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> - 2013-01-21 09:01 +0100
Re: Parallax Propeller Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2013-01-21 21:11 -0500
Re: Parallax Propeller upsidedown@downunder.com - 2013-01-22 09:39 +0200
Re: Parallax Propeller Mel Wilson <mwilson@the-wire.com> - 2013-01-22 10:14 -0500
Re: Parallax Propeller Waldek Hebisch <hebisch@math.uni.wroc.pl> - 2013-01-20 02:03 +0000
Re: Parallax Propeller George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> - 2013-01-19 12:29 -0500
Re: Parallax Propeller rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2013-01-23 12:29 -0500
Re: Parallax Propeller Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-01-24 14:03 -0800
Re: Parallax Propeller Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2013-01-24 22:55 -0800
Re: Parallax Propeller Mark Wills <forthfreak@gmail.com> - 2013-01-24 23:03 -0800
Re: Parallax Propeller Coos Haak <chforth@hccnet.nl> - 2013-01-25 20:02 +0100
Re: Parallax Propeller Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2013-01-28 17:13 -0800
Re: Parallax Propeller David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> - 2013-01-29 09:15 +0100
Re: Parallax Propeller Anders.Montonen@kapsi.spam.stop.fi.invalid - 2013-01-30 12:19 +0000
Re: Parallax Propeller David Brown <david.brown@removethis.hesbynett.no> - 2013-01-30 21:18 +0100
Re: Parallax Propeller Mark Wills <forthfreak@gmail.com> - 2013-01-30 22:57 -0800
Re: Parallax Propeller Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2013-01-31 10:38 -0800
Re: Parallax Propeller Mark Wills <forthfreak@gmail.com> - 2013-01-31 12:34 -0800
Re: Parallax Propeller Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2013-01-19 10:42 -0800
Re: Parallax Propeller bob@bob.com - 2013-01-19 19:56 -0600
Re: Parallax Propeller rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2013-01-23 12:40 -0500
Re: Parallax Propeller None <vandys@vsta.org> - 2013-01-24 23:26 +0000
Re: Parallax Propeller Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2013-01-25 11:49 -0500
Re: Parallax Propeller rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2013-01-25 09:25 -0500
Re: Parallax Propeller None <vandys@vsta.org> - 2013-01-25 21:57 +0000
Re: Parallax Propeller rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2013-01-26 18:07 -0500
Re: Parallax Propeller Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-01-27 00:50 -0800
Re: Parallax Propeller Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2013-01-27 03:30 -0600
Re: Parallax Propeller Dombo <dombo@disposable.invalid> - 2013-01-27 12:58 +0100
Re: Parallax Propeller rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2013-01-28 21:38 -0500
Re: Parallax Propeller None <vandys@vsta.org> - 2013-01-27 03:09 +0000
Re: Parallax Propeller rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2013-01-28 21:51 -0500
Re: Parallax Propeller None <vandys@vsta.org> - 2013-01-30 02:10 +0000
Re: Parallax Propeller rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2013-01-30 18:32 -0500
Re: Parallax Propeller David Schultz <abuse@127.0.0.1> - 2013-01-20 11:21 -0600
Re: Parallax Propeller albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2013-01-13 16:24 +0000
Re: Parallax Propeller David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> - 2013-01-14 10:51 +0100
Re: Parallax Propeller Peter Jakacki <peterjakacki@gmail.com> - 2013-01-16 06:06 +0000
Re: Parallax Propeller David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> - 2013-01-16 13:43 +0100
Re: Parallax Propeller Peter Jakacki <peterjakacki@gmail.com> - 2013-01-16 15:27 +0000
Re: Parallax Propeller Rafael Deliano <rafael_deliano@arcor.de> - 2013-01-15 21:10 +0100
Re: Parallax Propeller Peter Jakacki <peterjakacki@gmail.com> - 2013-01-16 06:26 +0000
Re: Parallax Propeller gavino_himself <visploveslisp@gmail.com> - 2013-01-22 06:26 -0800
Re: Parallax Propeller Peter Jakacki <peterjakacki@gmail.com> - 2013-01-13 12:44 +0000
Page 4 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 Next page →
| From | Waldek Hebisch <hebisch@math.uni.wroc.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-01-20 02:03 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <kdfja6$ion$1@z-news.wcss.wroc.pl> |
| In reply to | #18891 |
In comp.arch.embedded Paul E. Bennett <Paul_E.Bennett@topmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
> One question you should ask yourself is why you think a parallel processor
> (particularly the mesh organised ones) really need to include interrupts.
> You have many processors, all the same, simple, no frills. You can afford to
> dedicate a processor to deal with inputs that need to be responded to
> rapidly without the need for interrupts. I know that, to some, it might seem
> a waste of a processor, but with heavily parallel chips you could afford to
> think about how you allocate I/O around the processor array.
>
Forget about I/O -- in modern systems I/O devices frequantly
are like a specialized processors. Think about coordination
between different processors -- you need to get some info
from one processor to another ASAP and the info is nonatomic
so just writing it to shared RAM will not do. And you
need intrrupt even in case of atomic info it the target
processor is doing something else at would not look at
the info otherwise.
--
Waldek Hebisch
hebisch@math.uni.wroc.pl
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-01-19 12:29 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <q4ilf8pbni9pqt3bfpju7ga72kehacdemv@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #18889 |
On Fri, 18 Jan 2013 21:07:58 -0500, Ben Bradley <ben_u_bradley@etcmail.com> wrote: >... I first saw the propellor mentioned years ago, the 8 32-bit cores >thing sounds nice, but no interrupts was a deal killer for me. A year >or two back (with maybe earlier mention of the P2) I looked on the >"official" support/discussion forums for the Propellor and saw this >longish thread on "why doesn't it have interrupts" and there were >posts there that covered every objection I've had or seen to a >microcontroller not having interrupts, even "why not add interrupts? >It would take very little silicon and you don't have to use 'em if you >don't want to." It's against that designer guru guy's religion or >something. There has been much discussions in comp.arch re: this very question. The consensus has been that interrupts are extremely difficult to implement properly (in the hardware and/or microcode), and most chips don't do it right, leading to the occasional unavoidable glitch even when handler code is written correctly per the CPU documentation. There also has been much discussion of non-interrupting systems where cores can be devoted to device handling. The consensus there is that interrupts per se are not necessary, but such systems still require inter-processor signaling. There has been considerable debate about the form(s) such signaling should take. George
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-01-23 12:29 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <kdsa4e$k4a$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #18898 |
On 1/19/2013 12:29 PM, George Neuner wrote: > On Fri, 18 Jan 2013 21:07:58 -0500, Ben Bradley > <ben_u_bradley@etcmail.com> wrote: > >> ... I first saw the propellor mentioned years ago, the 8 32-bit cores >> thing sounds nice, but no interrupts was a deal killer for me. A year >> or two back (with maybe earlier mention of the P2) I looked on the >> "official" support/discussion forums for the Propellor and saw this >> longish thread on "why doesn't it have interrupts" and there were >> posts there that covered every objection I've had or seen to a >> microcontroller not having interrupts, even "why not add interrupts? >> It would take very little silicon and you don't have to use 'em if you >> don't want to." It's against that designer guru guy's religion or >> something. > > There has been much discussions in comp.arch re: this very question. > The consensus has been that interrupts are extremely difficult to > implement properly (in the hardware and/or microcode), and most chips > don't do it right, leading to the occasional unavoidable glitch even > when handler code is written correctly per the CPU documentation. How do you define "implement properly" for interrupts? Like most things, if interrupts are kept simple, they work. It's the multiple priority, many task processing that is hard to do right. > There also has been much discussion of non-interrupting systems where > cores can be devoted to device handling. The consensus there is that > interrupts per se are not necessary, but such systems still require > inter-processor signaling. There has been considerable debate about > the form(s) such signaling should take. There is always more than one way to skin a cat. I'm not convinced interrupts are not necessary, well, maybe I should say "not useful" instead, how's that? Rick
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-01-24 14:03 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <059a3ef0-32ba-4de1-80d9-3f7f5e4daa37@k4g2000yqn.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #19098 |
On Jan 23, 5:29 pm, rickman <gnu...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 1/19/2013 12:29 PM, George Neuner wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, 18 Jan 2013 21:07:58 -0500, Ben Bradley > > <ben_u_brad...@etcmail.com> wrote: > > >> ... I first saw the propellor mentioned years ago, the 8 32-bit cores > >> thing sounds nice, but no interrupts was a deal killer for me. A year > >> or two back (with maybe earlier mention of the P2) I looked on the > >> "official" support/discussion forums for the Propellor and saw this > >> longish thread on "why doesn't it have interrupts" and there were > >> posts there that covered every objection I've had or seen to a > >> microcontroller not having interrupts, even "why not add interrupts? > >> It would take very little silicon and you don't have to use 'em if you > >> don't want to." It's against that designer guru guy's religion or > >> something. > > > There has been much discussions in comp.arch re: this very question. > > The consensus has been that interrupts are extremely difficult to > > implement properly (in the hardware and/or microcode), and most chips > > don't do it right, leading to the occasional unavoidable glitch even > > when handler code is written correctly per the CPU documentation. > > How do you define "implement properly" for interrupts? Like most > things, if interrupts are kept simple, they work. It's the multiple > priority, many task processing that is hard to do right. > > > There also has been much discussion of non-interrupting systems where > > cores can be devoted to device handling. The consensus there is that > > interrupts per se are not necessary, but such systems still require > > inter-processor signaling. There has been considerable debate about > > the form(s) such signaling should take. > > There is always more than one way to skin a cat. I'm not convinced > interrupts are not necessary, well, maybe I should say "not useful" > instead, how's that? > > Rick I'm inclined to agree, though I've only had experience with 'classic' micro-processors in this regard, so maybe my thoughts on the issue are simply out of date. I can see that if you have a lot cores you can effectively make your own interrupt controller by dedicating a core or more to it. That idea seems to make sense on a simple device like the GA devices, where each core is very primitive in its own right, so one can argue that the 'cost' of assigning a core to the task of interrupt detection is low. However, the idea does not sit well with me when talking about complex devices such as the Propeller. Dedicating a cog to interrupt control sounds bonkers to me, especially when a cog has its own video controller - that's real overkill. I get the impression that the Propeller is somewhat dumbed-down for the hobbyist market. I cite its programming language, and the lack of interrupts as two examples. Why they couldn't they add a 9th super- simple core just for interrupts, that could pipe certain types of interrupts to certain cogs? Best of both worlds. The TMS99xx family of processors (very old) has 16 prioritised cascading interrupts. Probably inherited from mini-computer architecture. Very very powerful for its day. Since they were prioritised, a lower level interrupt would not interrupt a higher level interrupt until the higher level ISR terminated. Makes serving multiple interrupts an absolute doddle. Not bad for 1976.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-01-24 22:55 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <d3d89035-2aeb-4a08-b630-ffa83e2f4e25@ui9g2000pbc.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #19103 |
On Jan 24, 3:03 pm, Mark Wills <markrobertwi...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > The TMS99xx family of processors (very old) has 16 prioritised > cascading interrupts. Probably inherited from mini-computer > architecture. Very very powerful for its day. Since they were > prioritised, a lower level interrupt would not interrupt a higher > level interrupt until the higher level ISR terminated. Makes serving > multiple interrupts an absolute doddle. Not bad for 1976. Doddle? I've never heard that word before. Is a doddle good or bad?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mark Wills <forthfreak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-01-24 23:03 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <6699e4c1-1e94-48d0-9b9c-068f55be15a9@x3g2000yqo.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #19117 |
On Jan 25, 6:55 am, Hugh Aguilar <hughaguila...@yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jan 24, 3:03 pm, Mark Wills <markrobertwi...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > > > The TMS99xx family of processors (very old) has 16 prioritised > > cascading interrupts. Probably inherited from mini-computer > > architecture. Very very powerful for its day. Since they were > > prioritised, a lower level interrupt would not interrupt a higher > > level interrupt until the higher level ISR terminated. Makes serving > > multiple interrupts an absolute doddle. Not bad for 1976. > > Doddle? I've never heard that word before. Is a doddle good or bad? doddle = extremely simple/easy "Did you manage to fix that bug?" "Yeah, it was a doddle!" :-)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Coos Haak <chforth@hccnet.nl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-01-25 20:02 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <1nclt8xm8kjn.16vbxkktpe0gt.dlg@40tude.net> |
| In reply to | #19118 |
Op Thu, 24 Jan 2013 23:03:32 -0800 (PST) schreef Mark Wills: > On Jan 25, 6:55 am, Hugh Aguilar <hughaguila...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> On Jan 24, 3:03 pm, Mark Wills <markrobertwi...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >> >>> The TMS99xx family of processors (very old) has 16 prioritised >>> cascading interrupts. Probably inherited from mini-computer >>> architecture. Very very powerful for its day. Since they were >>> prioritised, a lower level interrupt would not interrupt a higher >>> level interrupt until the higher level ISR terminated. Makes serving >>> multiple interrupts an absolute doddle. Not bad for 1976. >> >> Doddle? I've never heard that word before. Is a doddle good or bad? > > doddle = extremely simple/easy > > "Did you manage to fix that bug?" > "Yeah, it was a doddle!" > > :-) As we say: een fluitje van een cent. A flute of a cent does cost nearly nothing and can be made for nearly nothing. There is a herb (Anthriscus sylvestris) we call Fluitekruid. Due to nearly French purism (hash-tag vs. mot-dièse) we must write Fluitenkruid, as if it were plural. -- Coos CHForth, 16 bit DOS applications http://home.hccnet.nl/j.j.haak/forth.html
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-01-28 17:13 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <2d0cba3c-f3d9-4b00-8795-359609170ebc@px4g2000pbc.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #19118 |
On Jan 25, 12:03 am, Mark Wills <forthfr...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 25, 6:55 am, Hugh Aguilar <hughaguila...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > On Jan 24, 3:03 pm, Mark Wills <markrobertwi...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > > > > The TMS99xx family of processors (very old) has 16 prioritised > > > cascading interrupts. Probably inherited from mini-computer > > > architecture. Very very powerful for its day. Since they were > > > prioritised, a lower level interrupt would not interrupt a higher > > > level interrupt until the higher level ISR terminated. Makes serving > > > multiple interrupts an absolute doddle. Not bad for 1976. > > > Doddle? I've never heard that word before. Is a doddle good or bad? > > doddle = extremely simple/easy > > "Did you manage to fix that bug?" > "Yeah, it was a doddle!" > > :-) Maybe the reason why we don't have "doddle" or any similar word in America, is because we never do anything the simple/easy way here! :-)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-01-29 09:15 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <kJCdnRhwK7SFGJrMnZ2dnUVZ8j-dnZ2d@lyse.net> |
| In reply to | #19232 |
On 29/01/13 02:13, Hugh Aguilar wrote: > On Jan 25, 12:03 am, Mark Wills <forthfr...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Jan 25, 6:55 am, Hugh Aguilar <hughaguila...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >>> On Jan 24, 3:03 pm, Mark Wills <markrobertwi...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >> >>>> The TMS99xx family of processors (very old) has 16 prioritised >>>> cascading interrupts. Probably inherited from mini-computer >>>> architecture. Very very powerful for its day. Since they were >>>> prioritised, a lower level interrupt would not interrupt a higher >>>> level interrupt until the higher level ISR terminated. Makes serving >>>> multiple interrupts an absolute doddle. Not bad for 1976. >> >>> Doddle? I've never heard that word before. Is a doddle good or bad? >> >> doddle = extremely simple/easy >> >> "Did you manage to fix that bug?" >> "Yeah, it was a doddle!" >> >> :-) > > Maybe the reason why we don't have "doddle" or any similar word in > America, is because we never do anything the simple/easy way here! :-) > I am not sure, but I think "doddle" is perhaps a Scottish term. As far as I could tell from an online dictionary, the origins are from the German word for bagpipe... Another very useful term is "fangle", which is the Scottish word that perfectly describes the organisation of cables on most embedded developers' desks.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Anders.Montonen@kapsi.spam.stop.fi.invalid |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-01-30 12:19 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <keb346$eb5$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #19235 |
In comp.arch.embedded David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> wrote: > Another very useful term is "fangle", which is the Scottish word that > perfectly describes the organisation of cables on most embedded > developers' desks. Gives a whole new meaning to the phrase "new-fangled". -a
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@removethis.hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-01-30 21:18 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <H-CdnUlWF-aSHZTMnZ2dnUVZ8jidnZ2d@lyse.net> |
| In reply to | #19281 |
On 30/01/13 13:19, Anders.Montonen@kapsi.spam.stop.fi.invalid wrote: > In comp.arch.embedded David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> wrote: > >> Another very useful term is "fangle", which is the Scottish word that >> perfectly describes the organisation of cables on most embedded >> developers' desks. > > Gives a whole new meaning to the phrase "new-fangled". > > -a > This would make more sense if I could spell - normally I rely on Thunderbird's spell checker, but of course that doesn't help here! I meant to write "fankle" rather than "fangle", and I don't think the terms are related.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mark Wills <forthfreak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-01-30 22:57 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <62406bef-99e6-4d67-8bee-2f4e28ed094e@w7g2000yqo.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #19294 |
On Jan 30, 8:18 pm, David Brown <david.br...@removethis.hesbynett.no> wrote: > On 30/01/13 13:19, Anders.Monto...@kapsi.spam.stop.fi.invalid wrote: > > > In comp.arch.embedded David Brown <da...@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> wrote: > > >> Another very useful term is "fangle", which is the Scottish word that > >> perfectly describes the organisation of cables on most embedded > >> developers' desks. > > > Gives a whole new meaning to the phrase "new-fangled". > > > -a > > This would make more sense if I could spell - normally I rely on > Thunderbird's spell checker, but of course that doesn't help here! I > meant to write "fankle" rather than "fangle", and I don't think the > terms are related. Fankle was our "Word of the week" here in the office just last week. Every week a word is chosen, and it's printed out on A3 and put up on the wall. It is every engineers moral obligation to use that word as many times as he can in every conversation he engages in. It's hilarious. Makes client meetings so much more entertaining.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-01-31 10:38 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <1ee9b885-80e0-4b21-8056-c7c95316da4f@q16g2000pbt.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #19303 |
On Jan 31, 6:57 am, Mark Wills <forthfr...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 30, 8:18 pm, David Brown <david.br...@removethis.hesbynett.no> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On 30/01/13 13:19, Anders.Monto...@kapsi.spam.stop.fi.invalid wrote: > > > > In comp.arch.embedded David Brown <da...@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> wrote: > > > >> Another very useful term is "fangle", which is the Scottish word that > > >> perfectly describes the organisation of cables on most embedded > > >> developers' desks. > > > > Gives a whole new meaning to the phrase "new-fangled". > > > > -a > > > This would make more sense if I could spell - normally I rely on > > Thunderbird's spell checker, but of course that doesn't help here! I > > meant to write "fankle" rather than "fangle", and I don't think the > > terms are related. > > Fankle was our "Word of the week" here in the office just last week. > Every week a word is chosen, and it's printed out on A3 and put up on > the wall. It is every engineers moral obligation to use that word as > many times as he can in every conversation he engages in. It's > hilarious. Makes client meetings so much more entertaining. Next week's word: stramash. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/stramash
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mark Wills <forthfreak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-01-31 12:34 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <435b8339-d2b2-4f09-9833-14b62e9fcfc4@x18g2000yqo.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #19322 |
On Jan 31, 6:38 pm, Alex McDonald <b...@rivadpm.com> wrote: > On Jan 31, 6:57 am, Mark Wills <forthfr...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Jan 30, 8:18 pm, David Brown <david.br...@removethis.hesbynett.no> > > wrote: > > > > On 30/01/13 13:19, Anders.Monto...@kapsi.spam.stop.fi.invalid wrote: > > > > > In comp.arch.embedded David Brown <da...@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> wrote: > > > > >> Another very useful term is "fangle", which is the Scottish word that > > > >> perfectly describes the organisation of cables on most embedded > > > >> developers' desks. > > > > > Gives a whole new meaning to the phrase "new-fangled". > > > > > -a > > > > This would make more sense if I could spell - normally I rely on > > > Thunderbird's spell checker, but of course that doesn't help here! I > > > meant to write "fankle" rather than "fangle", and I don't think the > > > terms are related. > > > Fankle was our "Word of the week" here in the office just last week. > > Every week a word is chosen, and it's printed out on A3 and put up on > > the wall. It is every engineers moral obligation to use that word as > > many times as he can in every conversation he engages in. It's > > hilarious. Makes client meetings so much more entertaining. > > Next week's word: stramash.http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/stramash Fit like, min? Its nae my shot at word of the week next week, but see when it's my shot, Stramash it'll be. Ken?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-01-19 10:42 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <7xwqv9m2ub.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com> |
| In reply to | #18889 |
Ben Bradley <ben_u_bradley@etcmail.com> writes: > As far as I know there's no other microcontroller that doesn't have > interrupts, and I can't recall one that didn't. The GA144 has no interrupts since you just dedicate a processor to the event you want to listen for. The processors have i/o ports (to external pins or to adjacent processors on the chip) that block on read, so the processor doesn't burn power while waiting for data.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bob@bob.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-01-19 19:56 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <9ejmf8hp8uf95n8ot7fqq3tv80tkb2cf7o@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #18899 |
On Sat, 19 Jan 2013 10:42:36 -0800, Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> wrote: >Ben Bradley <ben_u_bradley@etcmail.com> writes: >> As far as I know there's no other microcontroller that doesn't have >> interrupts, and I can't recall one that didn't. > >The GA144 has no interrupts since you just dedicate a processor to >the event you want to listen for. The processors have i/o ports >(to external pins or to adjacent processors on the chip) that block >on read, so the processor doesn't burn power while waiting for data. I use timer interrupts mainly to have many nice accurate timers. It makes it so easy. I could use polled timers in main() but really prefer the ease of an interrupt and if it doesn't require any context switching, what could be easier ? boB
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-01-23 12:40 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <kdsab0$k1s$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #18912 |
On 1/19/2013 8:56 PM, bob@bob.com wrote: > On Sat, 19 Jan 2013 10:42:36 -0800, Paul Rubin > <no.email@nospam.invalid> wrote: > >> Ben Bradley<ben_u_bradley@etcmail.com> writes: >>> As far as I know there's no other microcontroller that doesn't have >>> interrupts, and I can't recall one that didn't. >> >> The GA144 has no interrupts since you just dedicate a processor to >> the event you want to listen for. The processors have i/o ports >> (to external pins or to adjacent processors on the chip) that block >> on read, so the processor doesn't burn power while waiting for data. > > > I use timer interrupts mainly to have many nice accurate timers. > > It makes it so easy. I could use polled timers in main() but really > prefer the ease of an interrupt and if it doesn't require any context > switching, what could be easier ? In my opinion, the lack of timers is one of a number of significant shortcomings in the GA144. One of the claimed selling features of the device is the low power possible. But if you need to wait for a specific amount of time, not at all uncommon in real time systems which many embedded systems are, you have to put a processor into a spin loop to time it! If you read Chuck Moore's blog he spent some time trying to implement a video output without a clock. He only gave up that idea when he found the pixels jittered on the screen because of the vagaries of async processor timing loops. Had he implemented a simple timer on each processor driven by... yes, a global chip clock (Oh! The horror!!!) many timing events would be so much simpler and likely lower power. 5 mW per core in a spin loop. It doesn't take many of those to add up to significant power. In a recent design I considered for the GA144 I found the CPU core expended more than half it's power in the spin loop timing the ADC converter and that was just a 6% duty cycle! This exceeded the power budget. With an on chip clock the ADC could have been timed at very low power possibly making the design practical. Rick
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | None <vandys@vsta.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-01-24 23:26 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20130124232504.16848.3314@localhost.localdomain> |
| In reply to | #18912 |
rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> writes: > If you read Chuck Moore's blog he spent some time trying to implement a > video output without a clock. He only gave up that idea when he found > the pixels jittered on the screen because of the vagaries of async > processor timing loops. I played with the PropTerm and found that the CPU-generated VGA bit stream (a CPU got dedicated to the task) resulted in displays which always had a little bit of fuzziness. It worked, and was quite readable, but the sharpness of a regular PC display really made me aware of the limits of a pure software approach to analog generation. Andy
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-01-25 11:49 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <5102B7B1.C1FE8CC2@bytecraft.com> |
| In reply to | #19107 |
None wrote: > rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> writes: > > If you read Chuck Moore's blog he spent some time trying to implement a > > video output without a clock. He only gave up that idea when he found > > the pixels jittered on the screen because of the vagaries of async > > processor timing loops. > > I played with the PropTerm and found that the CPU-generated VGA bit stream (a > CPU got dedicated to the task) resulted in displays which always had a little > bit of fuzziness. It worked, and was quite readable, but the sharpness > of a regular PC display really made me aware of the limits of a pure software > approach to analog generation. > I have worked on a couple event driven ISA designs. Jitter is visible on displays but it is equally problematic with control systems. The best solution that I have seen/used is to have the hardware transfer out a precomputed value or latch an input on the event interrupt trigger. Output values are almost always known in advance. This minor change has essentially little impact on the processor silicon complexity. A second important performance issue is to have an easily accesses data area associated with each interrupt source. It means that a lot of common code (pwm, ac phase control... ) can be a single executable. In some cases preloading an index register with the start of data for that interrupt in some hardware has significant performance improvements. Walter Banks Byte Craft Limited
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-01-25 09:25 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <kdurqu$bnv$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #19107 |
On 1/24/2013 6:26 PM, None wrote: > rickman<gnuarm@gmail.com> writes: >> If you read Chuck Moore's blog he spent some time trying to implement a >> video output without a clock. He only gave up that idea when he found >> the pixels jittered on the screen because of the vagaries of async >> processor timing loops. > > I played with the PropTerm and found that the CPU-generated VGA bit stream (a > CPU got dedicated to the task) resulted in displays which always had a little > bit of fuzziness. It worked, and was quite readable, but the sharpness > of a regular PC display really made me aware of the limits of a pure software > approach to analog generation. How do you know the display "fuzziness" was due to software timing? I would expect software timing on a clocked processor to be on par with other means of timing. There are other aspects of design that could cause fuzziness or timing ambiguities in the signal. Rick
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.forth
csiph-web