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

Groups > alt.os.development > #9404

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

From Bogus@Embarq.com (Steve)
Newsgroups alt.os.development, alt.folklore.computers, comp.arch
Subject Re: processor binary- or pin-compatibility, was [Re: Processor ISAs]
Date 2016-04-05 17:43 +0000
Organization Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID <c1.2b8.3qfbn2$05r@NOVOSAD3.EMBARQ.COM> (permalink)
References (3 earlier) <ndle1l$2s2$2@dont-email.me> <ndllam$utu$1@gioia.aioe.org> <ndmq68$jmo$1@dont-email.me> <20160401212231.1c439bc6@_> <ndupd5$5d1$1@dont-email.me>

Cross-posted to 3 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

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.

Back to alt.os.development | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

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

csiph-web