Re: Whether something is RISC or not (Re: PDP-8 theology, not Concertina II Progress)

Liste des GroupesRevenir à c arch 
Sujet : Re: Whether something is RISC or not (Re: PDP-8 theology, not Concertina II Progress)
De : david.brown (at) *nospam* hesbynett.no (David Brown)
Groupes : comp.arch
Date : 16. Apr 2024, 08:23:47
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <uvl5hj$q0so$1@dont-email.me>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
On 16/04/2024 02:35, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
On Sun, 14 Jan 2024 14:30:51 -0500, EricP wrote:
 
Furthermore, the address and data registers and buses are 16 bits and
the high 16-bits are shared ...
 No, in the 68000 family the A- and D- registers are 32 bits.
 If you compare the earlier members with the 68020 and later, it becomes
clear that the architecture was designed as full 32-bit from the
beginning, and then implemented in a cut-down form for the initial 16-bit
products. Going full 32-bit was just a matter of filling in the gaps.
Yes, the 68000 was designed to have full support for 32-bit types and a 32-bit future, but (primarily for cost reasons) used a 16-bit ALU and 16-bit buses internally and externally.  Some 68000 compilers had 16-bit int, some had 32-bit int, and some let you choose either, since 16-bit types could be significantly faster on the 68000 even though the general-purpose registers were 32-bit.

Date Sujet#  Auteur
16 Apr 24 * Re: Whether something is RISC or not (Re: PDP-8 theology, not Concertina II Progress)4Lawrence D'Oliveiro
16 Apr 24 `* Re: Whether something is RISC or not (Re: PDP-8 theology, not Concertina II Progress)3David Brown
16 Apr 24  +- Re: Whether something is RISC or not (Re: PDP-8 theology, not Concertina II Progress)1MitchAlsup1
26 May 24  `- Re: Whether something is RISC or not (Re: PDP-8 theology, not Concertina II Progress)1MitchAlsup1

Haut de la page

Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.

NewsPortal