Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.forth > #57042 > unrolled thread
| Started by | john <anon@example.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-04-11 13:07 +0100 |
| Last post | 2017-04-12 10:08 +0100 |
| Articles | 4 on this page of 44 — 13 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.forth
6502 anyone ? john <anon@example.com> - 2017-04-11 13:07 +0100
Re: 6502 anyone ? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-04-11 23:31 -0400
Re: 6502 anyone ? Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2017-04-12 01:27 -0700
Re: 6502 anyone ? Lars Brinkhoff <lars.spam@nocrew.org> - 2017-04-12 10:46 +0200
Re: 6502 anyone ? Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2017-04-12 01:57 -0700
Re: 6502 anyone ? Lars Brinkhoff <lars.spam@nocrew.org> - 2017-04-12 12:24 +0200
Re: 6502 anyone ? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-04-12 14:37 -0700
Re: 6502 anyone ? lehs <skydda.barnen@gmail.com> - 2017-04-12 17:16 -0700
Re: 6502 anyone ? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-04-12 18:10 -0700
Re: 6502 anyone ? lehs <skydda.barnen@gmail.com> - 2017-04-12 23:46 -0700
Re: 6502 anyone ? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-04-13 03:00 -0400
Re: 6502 anyone ? lehs <skydda.barnen@gmail.com> - 2017-04-13 00:37 -0700
Re: 6502 anyone ? lehs <skydda.barnen@gmail.com> - 2017-04-13 00:42 -0700
Re: 6502 anyone ? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-04-13 12:57 -0400
Re: 6502 anyone ? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-04-13 12:01 -0500
Re: 6502 anyone ? lehs <skydda.barnen@gmail.com> - 2017-04-13 10:42 -0700
Re: 6502 anyone ? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-04-13 12:55 -0500
Re: 6502 anyone ? lehs <skydda.barnen@gmail.com> - 2017-04-13 11:13 -0700
Re: 6502 anyone ? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-04-13 14:24 -0400
Re: 6502 anyone ? lehs <skydda.barnen@gmail.com> - 2017-04-13 11:57 -0700
Re: 6502 anyone ? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-04-13 15:15 -0400
Re: 6502 anyone ? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-04-13 14:23 -0400
Re: 6502 anyone ? john <anon@example.com> - 2017-04-12 10:25 +0100
Re: 6502 anyone ? albert@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2017-04-12 12:27 +0200
Re: 6502 anyone ? Lars Brinkhoff <lars.spam@nocrew.org> - 2017-04-12 12:53 +0200
Re: 6502 anyone ? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-04-12 12:55 +0000
Re: 6502 anyone ? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-04-12 12:20 -0400
Re: 6502 anyone ? Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2017-04-12 05:10 -0700
Re: 6502 anyone ? Michael Barry <barrym95838@yahoo.com> - 2017-04-12 22:41 -0700
Re: 6502 anyone ? Joel Rees <joel.rees@gmail.com> - 2017-04-13 02:14 -0700
Re: 6502 anyone ? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-04-13 11:01 +0000
Re: 6502 anyone ? jim.brakefield@ieee.org - 2017-04-13 06:33 -0700
Re: 6502 anyone ? Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2017-04-13 07:24 -0700
Re: 6502 anyone ? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-04-13 09:51 -0500
Re: 6502 anyone ? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-04-13 17:16 +0000
Re: 6502 anyone ? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-04-13 13:08 -0700
Re: 6502 anyone ? Joel Rees <joel.rees@gmail.com> - 2017-04-14 08:06 -0700
Re: 6502 anyone ? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-04-13 13:00 -0400
Re: 6502 anyone ? "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2017-04-13 10:42 +1000
Re: 6502 anyone ? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-04-12 18:45 -0700
Re: 6502 anyone ? "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2017-04-14 13:01 +1000
Re: 6502 anyone ? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-04-14 01:21 -0400
Re: 6502 anyone ? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-04-13 23:23 -0700
Re: 6502 anyone ? john <anon@example.com> - 2017-04-12 10:08 +0100
Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]
| From | "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-14 13:01 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <ocpe3m$9c8$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #57202 |
hughaguilar96@gmail.com wrote: > On Wednesday, April 12, 2017 at 5:43:35 PM UTC-7, HAA wrote: > > ... > > Keeping in mind it was intended to be a low-cost, bare-bones, > > alternative to the 6800 aimed at microcontroller work, the limited > > register set/size and missing instructions are understandable. > > The failure to correct existing broken instructions wasn't. > > ... > > You can blame Wozniak and the hobbyists for the appearance of > > the 6502 in systems for which it wasn't intended. Tramiel and co. > > weren't going to complain. They were making buckets of money > > riding the crest of a craze. > > The 65c02 was a disappointment. It could have been so much better! If the JMP indirect > instruction had used the Y register, the 65c02 would have been a very good processor > for VMs. You could have 128 primitives each with a one-byte code. Your generated code > would be quite compact. Most of the VM instructions would be one byte. Some of them > would be two or three bytes because they have an operand. The NEXT routine would be > very fast (note for Mark Wills: this NEXT would be about an order of magnitude faster > than anything that could be done on the Z80). > ... Making the 6502 better would have entailed a total redesign. The 6502 was built around small. Lack of 16-bit regs, limited zero page and fixed stack all became problematic for larger apps. Intel took the opposite approach when upgrading the 8008 to 8080. The 8080 was well suited for writing an OS and apps such as language compilers.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-14 01:21 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <ocpm2v$bqh$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #57269 |
On 4/13/2017 11:01 PM, HAA wrote: > > Making the 6502 better would have entailed a total redesign. The 6502 was built > around small. Lack of 16-bit regs, limited zero page and fixed stack all became > problematic for larger apps. Intel took the opposite approach when upgrading > the 8008 to 8080. The 8080 was well suited for writing an OS and apps such > as language compilers. I still have an 8008 computer somewhere. It is amazing just how much impact that design had on all the following Intel CPUs. The most obvious was the first three phases of the memory cycle were T1, T2 and T3. These corresponded to the output of the two halves of the address and the data movement in the 8008, because it was packaged in an 18 pin DIP, so the 8 bit data bus was multiplexed for a 14 bit address and 8 bits of data. The next several generations of Intel CPUs had similar arrangements even though they had full size address buses although some multiplexed the data with the address like the 8085. -- Rick C
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hughaguilar96@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-13 23:23 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c1fa442a-db4d-47ea-a30d-d7d5a2ba548d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #57269 |
On Thursday, April 13, 2017 at 8:02:17 PM UTC-7, HAA wrote: > hughaguilar96@gmail.com wrote: > > On Wednesday, April 12, 2017 at 5:43:35 PM UTC-7, HAA wrote: > > > ... > > > Keeping in mind it was intended to be a low-cost, bare-bones, > > > alternative to the 6800 aimed at microcontroller work, the limited > > > register set/size and missing instructions are understandable. > > > The failure to correct existing broken instructions wasn't. > > > ... > > > You can blame Wozniak and the hobbyists for the appearance of > > > the 6502 in systems for which it wasn't intended. Tramiel and co. > > > weren't going to complain. They were making buckets of money > > > riding the crest of a craze. > > > > The 65c02 was a disappointment. It could have been so much better! If the JMP indirect > > instruction had used the Y register, the 65c02 would have been a very good processor > > for VMs. You could have 128 primitives each with a one-byte code. Your generated code > > would be quite compact. Most of the VM instructions would be one byte. Some of them > > would be two or three bytes because they have an operand. The NEXT routine would be > > very fast (note for Mark Wills: this NEXT would be about an order of magnitude faster > > than anything that could be done on the Z80). > > ... > > Making the 6502 better would have entailed a total redesign. The 6502 was built > around small. Lack of 16-bit regs, limited zero page and fixed stack all became > problematic for larger apps. Intel took the opposite approach when upgrading > the 8008 to 8080. The 8080 was well suited for writing an OS and apps such > as language compilers. Well, I'm not suggesting a total redesign. 1.) Make the JMP indirect use Y rather than X. 2.) Make code and data reside in separate 64KB memories (with a 17-bit address bus). 3.) Get rid of the indirect,X addressing mode because it is almost never used. Note that #3 would made the 6502 smaller --- this could free up some chip space to allow some new instructions --- a multiply would be hugely helpful! BTW: Abrash's famous book has a chapter titled: "Strange Fruit of the 8080" --- describes how the 8080 affected the future x86 chips in weird ways. Also, I don't think the 8080 was: "well suited for writing an OS and apps such as language compilers." CP/M wasn't all that great.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <anon@example.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-12 10:08 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.3357fee1efae633b989708@news.virginmedia.com> |
| In reply to | #57091 |
In article <ock6so$33k$3@dont-email.me>, gnuarm@gmail.com says... > > On 4/11/2017 8:07 AM, john wrote: > > > > Whilst poking around to shortcut my hardware development problems > > I came across the following links. > > > > Since I suspect most of use here are a bunch > > of old fogeys I thought they might be of interest, > > > > http://apple2.x10.mx/CHOCHI/ > > http://hackaday.com/2014/08/16/an-fpga-based-6502-computer/ > > > > So far I've seen one that claims to go up to 200Mhz. > > Something a bit different anyway. > > FPGA designs for old CPUs are a dime a dozen. You can find everything > from a PDP-11 to an 1802 to an IBM360 for FPGAs. Nearly all of them run > way faster than the original. I think you missed the real point but to be fair I didn't say much because I thought it was obvious. An FPGA board already configured with 6502 running forth and C for $30 Still - if that's all you want to take from it fair enough. -- john ========================= http://johntech.co.uk "Bleeding Edge Forum" http://johntech.co.uk/forum/ =========================
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.forth
csiph-web