Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
| From | John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.arch |
| Subject | Re: The Indexed Instruction Problem Solved! |
| Date | 2011-07-09 18:37 +0000 |
| Organization | Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY |
| Message-ID | <iva763$22o3$1@gal.iecc.com> (permalink) |
| References | <b4ebeaa5-411f-4ee8-8a18-71a49e4e0ed3@glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com> <d6lRp.57883$8G4.54572@newsfe17.iad> <iv5mig$1acn$1@gal.iecc.com> <d10Sp.23658$Mo3.2539@newsfe15.iad> |
>I guess they were trying to offload operations >to memory due to the paucity of registers >(at least Nova was register challenged: >4 accumulator registers + PC, SP, FP). The PDP-8 and 9 were single accumulator, so four registers seemed pretty advanced, at least until you saw the 6 2/3 registers on the -11. (Two of the 8 registers were reserved as SP and PC.) >If that is the case then I think the TI 9900 approach would be a >better with all its registers in memory and an 'address of register >bank' pointer register in the cpu. Much cleaner and cheaper. Slower, too, I would expect. On the PDP-6 and KA10, the standard confguration put the 16 registers in memory, and the flip-flop registers were an option. I don't think they ever sold a computer without that option, though. >Speaking of cheap: I saw a wiring diagram for one model of a Nova >(back when computers came with such) and it had only a single 74181 >4-bit ALU. Anyone have diagrams for the bit serial PDP-8/S? Opinons varied on whether the S stood for Serial or Slower than Sh*t, but it did take 90us to do a worst case ISZ instruction that used an indirect address of an auto-increment location that turned to zero so the instruction skipped, due to the three trips through the adder. R's, John
Back to comp.arch | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Re: The Indexed Instruction Problem Solved! MitchAlsup <MitchAlsup@aol.com> - 2011-07-06 14:12 -0700
Re: The Indexed Instruction Problem Solved! Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2011-07-06 15:48 -0700
Re: The Indexed Instruction Problem Solved! EricP <ThatWouldBeTelling@thevillage.com> - 2011-07-06 20:36 -0400
Re: The Indexed Instruction Problem Solved! "Andy \"Krazy\" Glew" <andy@SPAM.comp-arch.net> - 2011-07-06 23:29 -0700
Re: The Indexed Instruction Problem Solved! "Andy \"Krazy\" Glew" <andy@SPAM.comp-arch.net> - 2011-07-06 23:31 -0700
Re: The Indexed Instruction Problem Solved! "Andy \"Krazy\" Glew" <andy@SPAM.comp-arch.net> - 2011-07-06 23:38 -0700
Re: The Indexed Instruction Problem Solved! "Andy \"Krazy\" Glew" <andy@SPAM.comp-arch.net> - 2011-07-06 23:39 -0700
Re: The Indexed Instruction Problem Solved! timcaffrey@aol.com (Tim McCaffrey) - 2011-07-14 01:36 +0000
Re: The Indexed Instruction Problem Solved! Stephen Fuld <SFuld@alumni.cmu.edu.invalid> - 2011-07-07 08:12 -0700
Re: The Indexed Instruction Problem Solved! EricP <ThatWouldBeTelling@thevillage.com> - 2011-07-07 12:24 -0400
Re: The Indexed Instruction Problem Solved! John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> - 2011-07-08 01:29 +0000
Re: The Indexed Instruction Problem Solved! Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2011-07-07 18:53 -0700
Re: The Indexed Instruction Problem Solved! John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> - 2011-07-08 02:17 +0000
Re: The Indexed Instruction Problem Solved! EricP <ThatWouldBeTelling@thevillage.com> - 2011-07-09 13:15 -0400
Re: The Indexed Instruction Problem Solved! John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> - 2011-07-09 18:37 +0000
Re: The Indexed Instruction Problem Solved! Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2011-07-09 11:53 -0700
Re: The Indexed Instruction Problem Solved! Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2011-07-09 11:55 -0700
Re: The Indexed Instruction Problem Solved! Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2011-07-09 11:49 -0700
Re: The Indexed Instruction Problem Solved! Chris Jones <clj@panix.com> - 2011-07-09 16:21 -0400
Re: The Indexed Instruction Problem Solved! Joe Chisolm <jchisolm6@earthlink.net> - 2011-07-07 13:19 -0500
Re: The Indexed Instruction Problem Solved! Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2011-07-07 12:11 -0700
Re: The Indexed Instruction Problem Solved! Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2011-07-07 12:13 -0700
Re: The Indexed Instruction Problem Solved! jsavard@excxn.aNOSPAMb.cdn.invalid (John Savard) - 2011-07-07 19:32 +0000
Re: The Indexed Instruction Problem Solved! Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2011-07-07 04:09 -0700
Re: The Indexed Instruction Problem Solved! Brett Davis <ggtgp@yahoo.com> - 2011-07-12 18:31 -0500
Re: The Indexed Instruction Problem Solved! "Andy \"Krazy\" Glew" <andy@SPAM.comp-arch.net> - 2011-07-13 22:31 -0700
Re: The Indexed Instruction Problem Solved! mac <acolvin@efunct.com> - 2011-07-17 15:31 +0000
Re: The Indexed Instruction Problem Solved! Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2011-07-17 09:50 -0700
Re: The Indexed Instruction Problem Solved! Andrew Reilly <areilly---@bigpond.net.au> - 2011-07-17 23:26 +0000
Re: The Indexed Instruction Problem Solved! Brett Davis <ggtgp@yahoo.com> - 2011-07-17 19:52 -0500
Re: The Indexed Instruction Problem Solved! Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2011-07-17 18:22 -0700
Re: The Indexed Instruction Problem Solved! "Andy \"Krazy\" Glew" <andy@SPAM.comp-arch.net> - 2011-07-17 21:33 -0700
Re: The Indexed Instruction Problem Solved! Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2011-07-18 06:34 -0700
Re: The Indexed Instruction Problem Solved! Stephen Fuld <SFuld@alumni.cmu.edu.invalid> - 2011-07-18 09:22 -0700
Re: The Indexed Instruction Problem Solved! nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2011-07-18 14:13 +0100
Re: The Indexed Instruction Problem Solved! Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2011-07-18 07:27 -0700
Re: The Indexed Instruction Problem Solved! nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2011-07-18 16:22 +0100
Re: The Indexed Instruction Problem Solved! Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2011-07-18 09:56 -0700
Re: The Indexed Instruction Problem Solved! nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2011-07-18 17:43 +0100
Re: The Indexed Instruction Problem Solved! Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2011-07-18 14:58 -0700
Re: The Indexed Instruction Problem Solved! nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2011-07-19 07:22 +0100
csiph-web