Rocksolid Light

Welcome to novaBBS (click a section below)

mail  files  register  newsreader  groups  login

Message-ID:  

One person's error is another person's data.


devel / comp.arch / Re: Architecture comparison (was: Upcoming DFP support in clang/LLVM)

SubjectAuthor
* Upcoming DFP support in clang/LLVMIvan Godard
+* Re: Upcoming DFP support in clang/LLVMQuadibloc
|`* Re: Upcoming DFP support in clang/LLVMMitchAlsup
| +* Re: Upcoming DFP support in clang/LLVMJohn Levine
| |+* Re: Upcoming DFP support in clang/LLVMMitchAlsup
| ||`* Re: Upcoming DFP support in clang/LLVMJohn Levine
| || +- Re: Upcoming DFP support in clang/LLVMQuadibloc
| || `* Re: Upcoming DFP support in clang/LLVMJohn Dallman
| ||  `* Re: Upcoming DFP support in clang/LLVMBGB
| ||   `* Re: Upcoming DFP support in clang/LLVMJohn Dallman
| ||    `* Re: Upcoming DFP support in clang/LLVMBGB
| ||     +* Re: Upcoming DFP support in clang/LLVMMitchAlsup
| ||     |`* Re: Upcoming DFP support in clang/LLVMTerje Mathisen
| ||     | `* Re: Upcoming DFP support in clang/LLVMTim Rentsch
| ||     |  +- Re: Upcoming DFP support in clang/LLVMMitchAlsup
| ||     |  `* Re: Upcoming DFP support in clang/LLVMTerje Mathisen
| ||     |   `- Re: Upcoming DFP support in clang/LLVMBGB
| ||     `- Re: Upcoming DFP support in clang/LLVMJohn Dallman
| |+- Re: Upcoming DFP support in clang/LLVMThomas Koenig
| |`* Re: Upcoming DFP support in clang/LLVMBGB
| | +- Re: Upcoming DFP support in clang/LLVMTerje Mathisen
| | +* Re: Upcoming DFP support in clang/LLVMThomas Koenig
| | |`* Re: Upcoming DFP support in clang/LLVMBGB
| | | +* Re: Upcoming DFP support in clang/LLVMQuadibloc
| | | |`* Re: Upcoming DFP support in clang/LLVMBGB
| | | | `* Architecture comparison (was: Upcoming DFP support in clang/LLVM)Anton Ertl
| | | |  `* Re: Architecture comparison (was: Upcoming DFP support in clang/LLVM)BGB
| | | |   +* Re: Architecture comparison (was: Upcoming DFP support in clang/LLVM)Bill Findlay
| | | |   |`* Re: Architecture comparison (was: Upcoming DFP support in clang/LLVM)BGB
| | | |   | `* Re: Architecture comparison (was: Upcoming DFP support in clang/LLVM)MitchAlsup
| | | |   |  `* Re: Architecture comparison (was: Upcoming DFP support in clang/LLVM)BGB
| | | |   |   +* Re: Architecture comparison (was: Upcoming DFP support in clang/LLVM)Ivan Godard
| | | |   |   |`- Re: Architecture comparison (was: Upcoming DFP support in clang/LLVM)MitchAlsup
| | | |   |   `* Re: Architecture comparison (was: Upcoming DFP support in clang/LLVM)MitchAlsup
| | | |   |    +- Re: Architecture comparison (was: Upcoming DFP support in clang/LLVM)BGB
| | | |   |    `* Re: Architecture comparisonTerje Mathisen
| | | |   |     +- Re: Architecture comparisonBGB
| | | |   |     +* Re: Architecture comparisonThomas Koenig
| | | |   |     |`- Re: Architecture comparisonMitchAlsup
| | | |   |     `* Re: Architecture comparisonMichael S
| | | |   |      `* Re: Architecture comparisonMitchAlsup
| | | |   |       +- Re: Architecture comparisonBGB
| | | |   |       `- Re: Architecture comparisonMichael S
| | | |   `* Re: Architecture comparison (was: Upcoming DFP support in clang/LLVM)MitchAlsup
| | | |    `* Re: Architecture comparison (was: Upcoming DFP support in clang/LLVM)Quadibloc
| | | |     `* Re: Architecture comparison (was: Upcoming DFP support in clang/LLVM)Stephen Fuld
| | | |      `* Re: Architecture comparison (was: Upcoming DFP support in clang/LLVM)BGB
| | | |       `* Re: Architecture comparison (was: Upcoming DFP support in clang/LLVM)Stephen Fuld
| | | |        `* Re: Architecture comparison (was: Upcoming DFP support in clang/LLVM)BGB
| | | |         +- Re: Architecture comparison (was: Upcoming DFP support in clang/LLVM)John Dallman
| | | |         `* Re: Architecture comparison (was: Upcoming DFP support in clang/LLVM)Robert Swindells
| | | |          `- Re: Architecture comparison (was: Upcoming DFP support in clang/LLVM)Torbjorn Lindgren
| | | +* Re: Upcoming DFP support in clang/LLVMQuadibloc
| | | |`* Re: Upcoming DFP support in clang/LLVMBGB
| | | | `- Re: Upcoming DFP support in clang/LLVMQuadibloc
| | | +* Re: Upcoming DFP support in clang/LLVMStephen Fuld
| | | |`* Re: Upcoming DFP support in clang/LLVMBGB
| | | | +* Re: Upcoming DFP support in clang/LLVMQuadibloc
| | | | |`- Re: Upcoming DFP support in clang/LLVMTerje Mathisen
| | | | `* Re: Upcoming DFP support in clang/LLVMQuadibloc
| | | |  +* Re: Upcoming DFP support in clang/LLVMThomas Koenig
| | | |  |+- Re: Upcoming DFP support in clang/LLVMQuadibloc
| | | |  |`- Re: Upcoming DFP support in clang/LLVMTerje Mathisen
| | | |  +- Re: Upcoming DFP support in clang/LLVMrobf...@gmail.com
| | | |  `- Re: Upcoming DFP support in clang/LLVMBGB
| | | +- Re: Graphics in the old days, wasUpcoming DFP support in clang/LLVMJohn Levine
| | | `- Re: Upcoming DFP support in clang/LLVMThomas Koenig
| | +* Re: Upcoming DFP support in clang/LLVMQuadibloc
| | |`* Re: Upcoming DFP support in clang/LLVMBill Findlay
| | | +- Re: Upcoming DFP support in clang/LLVMIvan Godard
| | | `* Re: Upcoming DFP support in clang/LLVMBrian G. Lucas
| | |  `- Re: Upcoming DFP support in clang/LLVMBill Findlay
| | +- Re: Upcoming DFP support in clang/LLVMStephen Fuld
| | +* Re: Upcoming DFP support in clang/LLVMMitchAlsup
| | |`* Re: Upcoming DFP support in clang/LLVMThomas Koenig
| | | `* Re: Upcoming DFP support in clang/LLVMMitchAlsup
| | |  +* Re: Fortran archaeology, Upcoming DFP support in clang/LLVMJohn Levine
| | |  |`* Re: Fortran archaeology, Upcoming DFP support in clang/LLVMMitchAlsup
| | |  | `* Re: Fortran archaeology, Upcoming DFP support in clang/LLVMThomas Koenig
| | |  |  `- Re: Fortran archaeology, Upcoming DFP support in clang/LLVMMitchAlsup
| | |  `- Re: Upcoming DFP support in clang/LLVMThomas Koenig
| | `* Re: tiny little computers, was Upcoming DFP support in clang/LLVMJohn Levine
| |  `* Re: tiny little computers, was Upcoming DFP support in clang/LLVMBGB
| |   +* Re: tiny little computers, was Upcoming DFP support in clang/LLVMaph
| |   |`* Re: tiny little computers, was Upcoming DFP support in clang/LLVMBGB
| |   | `* Re: tiny little computers, was Upcoming DFP support in clang/LLVMJohn Levine
| |   |  +* Re: tiny little computers, was Upcoming DFP support in clang/LLVMBill Findlay
| |   |  |`* Re: tiny little computers, was Upcoming DFP support in clang/LLVMIvan Godard
| |   |  | `- Re: tiny little pages, was Upcoming DFP support in clang/LLVMJohn Levine
| |   |  +- Re: tiny little computers, was Upcoming DFP support in clang/LLVMBGB
| |   |  +* Re: tiny little computers, was Upcoming DFP support in clang/LLVMMitchAlsup
| |   |  |`- Re: tiny little computers, was Upcoming DFP support in clang/LLVMJohn Levine
| |   |  `* Re: tiny little computers, was Upcoming DFP support in clang/LLVMEricP
| |   |   `- Re: tiny little computers, was Upcoming DFP support in clang/LLVMJohn Levine
| |   +- Re: tiny little computers, was Upcoming DFP support in clang/LLVMRobert Swindells
| |   `* Re: tiny little computers, was Upcoming DFP support in clang/LLVMEricP
| |    `* Re: tiny little computers, was Upcoming DFP support in clang/LLVMBill Findlay
| |     `- Re: tiny little computers, was Upcoming DFP support in clang/LLVMJohn Levine
| +- Re: Upcoming DFP support in clang/LLVMGuillaume
| `* Re: Upcoming DFP support in clang/LLVMThomas Koenig
|  `* Re: Upcoming DFP support in clang/LLVMThomas Koenig
`* Re: Upcoming DFP support in clang/LLVMMichael S

Pages:12345
Re: Architecture comparison (was: Upcoming DFP support in clang/LLVM)

<t5fs9i$1hr$1@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=25196&group=comp.arch#25196

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.arch
Path: i2pn2.org!rocksolid2!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: cr88...@gmail.com (BGB)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: Architecture comparison (was: Upcoming DFP support in clang/LLVM)
Date: Wed, 11 May 2022 03:30:31 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 77
Message-ID: <t5fs9i$1hr$1@dont-email.me>
References: <t4peor$cch$1@dont-email.me>
<91cffebb-ddec-4f70-b790-fbe5645eec3dn@googlegroups.com>
<97a308cb-943b-4a24-b12d-cbb3ab2d8a56n@googlegroups.com>
<t4q2cn$l82$1@gal.iecc.com> <t4qlfi$42b$1@dont-email.me>
<t4qsuk$77p$1@newsreader4.netcologne.de> <t4s55s$ine$1@dont-email.me>
<80fc57f0-86b3-4977-86e0-242d3c3c3b3an@googlegroups.com>
<t4sans$smp$1@dont-email.me> <2022May8.160036@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at>
<t59b2e$nd2$1@dont-email.me>
<68f71607-f7db-48c0-a118-d516c5590224n@googlegroups.com>
<b051e827-b128-4007-941e-d4b345e997b2n@googlegroups.com>
<t5esln$htk$1@dont-email.me> <t5evje$2ru$1@dont-email.me>
<t5fm22$73d$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 11 May 2022 08:31:46 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="7155b3a29c990c92a41c6ff303f1405a";
logging-data="1595"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1829rtNQtsSft3siSAv3TXS"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.8.0
Cancel-Lock: sha1:zfwE8I+hLtWczpBK/S/N+B+vSGE=
In-Reply-To: <t5fm22$73d$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
 by: BGB - Wed, 11 May 2022 08:30 UTC

On 5/11/2022 1:45 AM, Stephen Fuld wrote:
> On 5/10/2022 5:20 PM, BGB wrote:
>> On 5/10/2022 6:32 PM, Stephen Fuld wrote:
>>> On 5/10/2022 3:27 PM, Quadibloc wrote:
>>>> On Sunday, May 8, 2022 at 4:41:43 PM UTC-6, MitchAlsup wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Why do people always forget about the 8085 ??
>>>>
>>>> Not enough machines were made using it so that software
>>>> applications were written that used 8085 instructions that the
>>>> 8080 didn't have.
>>>
>>> It was used in a lot of embedded systems, as it led to lower cost
>>> systems than the 8080 and had a few features that helped there.
>>>
>>>
>>>> It didn't make much of a historical 'splash', even if at least one
>>>> book was written about it.
>>>
>>> Embedded processors rarely make a "splash" in consumer consciousness.
>>>
>>
>> Yeah, 8085 is sorta like the 80186.
>> Sorta existed, mostly forgotten about.
>>
>>
>> I guess also things "like its predecessor, but only slight
>> improvements, but not backwards compatible" is also sort of a
>> deal-breaker.
>
> 8085 was software compatible with the 8080.  And from a hardware
> perspective needing only one voltage in instead of three for the 8080
> was more than a "slight" improvement.
>
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_8085
>

Probably true.

My comment was ambiguous in this case, more in relation to the 80186
being not entirely binary compatible with software written for the 8086
(so IBM went from 8086 to 80286).

Goes and looks at some of the chips, and despite multiple chips of this
era having used DIP40, the pin orderings are almost completely different
between each chip.

Not sure why they would have done this.

Looks like the 8085, 8086, and 8088 all had multiplexed address/data
pins though. But, not the ISA bus.

I am guessing they probably transmitted address and data on different
clock cycles or something (with external chips between the CPU and bus).

Goes and counts the externally accessible pins on one of my FPGA boards.
Looks like 32 data IO pins. Slightly fewer pins than an 8086 or 8088,
but almost break-even.

Would be funny if someone tried to kluge an FPGA in place of an 8086 or
(reusing an old MOBO) and then access old ISA-bus cards and similar with it.

A CPU core on an FPGA would (most likely) be able to be a fair bit
faster than the original 8086 CPU, but less obvious what amount of
system-level performance one could get out of a vintage MOBO.

Though, it looks like it would be limited to the 8-bit ISA bus, which
would seemingly preclude being able to stick a typical VGA or SVGA card
or similar in it. (Well, and also "vintage" parts tend to be expensive
at this point).

....

Re: Architecture comparison (was: Upcoming DFP support in clang/LLVM)

<memo.20220511104812.8344Y@jgd.cix.co.uk>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=25199&group=comp.arch#25199

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.arch
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: jgd...@cix.co.uk (John Dallman)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: Architecture comparison (was: Upcoming DFP support in clang/LLVM)
Date: Wed, 11 May 2022 10:48 +0100 (BST)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 11
Message-ID: <memo.20220511104812.8344Y@jgd.cix.co.uk>
References: <t5fs9i$1hr$1@dont-email.me>
Reply-To: jgd@cix.co.uk
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="a3a7ab4d0b0b56300d944f24a952a0db";
logging-data="11804"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19sJYA9lJ2r0o6gBO+720+gYBtpczcal8s="
Cancel-Lock: sha1:2BDRGIiiX0Ffu1/9hFPAn0/h4oI=
 by: John Dallman - Wed, 11 May 2022 09:48 UTC

In article <t5fs9i$1hr$1@dont-email.me>, cr88192@gmail.com (BGB) wrote:

> My comment was ambiguous in this case, more in relation to the
> 80186 being not entirely binary compatible with software written
> for the 8086 (so IBM went from 8086 to 80286).

Actually, it was incompatible with software written for the IBM PC. This
wasn't an instruction set issue. The 80186 had several integrated
peripherals that weren't PC-compatible.

John

Re: Architecture comparison (was: Upcoming DFP support in clang/LLVM)

<t5gsuh$bsb$1@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=25202&group=comp.arch#25202

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.arch
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: rjs...@fdy2.co.uk (Robert Swindells)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: Architecture comparison (was: Upcoming DFP support in clang/LLVM)
Date: Wed, 11 May 2022 17:49:05 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 14
Message-ID: <t5gsuh$bsb$1@dont-email.me>
References: <t4peor$cch$1@dont-email.me>
<91cffebb-ddec-4f70-b790-fbe5645eec3dn@googlegroups.com>
<97a308cb-943b-4a24-b12d-cbb3ab2d8a56n@googlegroups.com>
<t4q2cn$l82$1@gal.iecc.com> <t4qlfi$42b$1@dont-email.me>
<t4qsuk$77p$1@newsreader4.netcologne.de> <t4s55s$ine$1@dont-email.me>
<80fc57f0-86b3-4977-86e0-242d3c3c3b3an@googlegroups.com>
<t4sans$smp$1@dont-email.me> <2022May8.160036@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at>
<t59b2e$nd2$1@dont-email.me>
<68f71607-f7db-48c0-a118-d516c5590224n@googlegroups.com>
<b051e827-b128-4007-941e-d4b345e997b2n@googlegroups.com>
<t5esln$htk$1@dont-email.me> <t5evje$2ru$1@dont-email.me>
<t5fm22$73d$1@dont-email.me> <t5fs9i$1hr$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 11 May 2022 17:49:05 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="1b55c68408f093c4b740023d5a142912";
logging-data="12171"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+MEnk/mDcTDUv/IGbj6jP2roxORMH6fQU="
User-Agent: Pan/0.150 (Moucherotte; 4c6043e)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:yXMWA5cNRWSuKeEWnIMofLqjsVE=
 by: Robert Swindells - Wed, 11 May 2022 17:49 UTC

On Wed, 11 May 2022 03:30:31 -0500, BGB wrote:

> My comment was ambiguous in this case, more in relation to the 80186
> being not entirely binary compatible with software written for the 8086
> (so IBM went from 8086 to 80286).
>
> Goes and looks at some of the chips, and despite multiple chips of this
> era having used DIP40, the pin orderings are almost completely different
> between each chip.

The NEC V30/V20 implemented the 80186 instructions and had the same
pinouts as the 8086/8088.

They were also fairly easy to buy as an upgrade for PCs.

Re: Architecture comparison (was: Upcoming DFP support in clang/LLVM)

<t5lkv5$r0d$1@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=25235&group=comp.arch#25235

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.arch
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: tl...@none.invalid (Torbjorn Lindgren)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: Architecture comparison (was: Upcoming DFP support in clang/LLVM)
Date: Fri, 13 May 2022 13:03:33 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 41
Message-ID: <t5lkv5$r0d$1@dont-email.me>
References: <t4peor$cch$1@dont-email.me> <t5fm22$73d$1@dont-email.me> <t5fs9i$1hr$1@dont-email.me> <t5gsuh$bsb$1@dont-email.me>
Injection-Date: Fri, 13 May 2022 13:03:33 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="0419e98cba3825d94fcb20c722d560fa";
logging-data="27661"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18HhEILg6H9IinfxUugxGONg1WrUcsfOO4="
Cancel-Lock: sha1:5ZKljlqliE++2JjVNj16Y3jAo/0=
X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test77 (Sep 1, 2010)
 by: Torbjorn Lindgren - Fri, 13 May 2022 13:03 UTC

Robert Swindells <rjs@fdy2.co.uk> wrote:
>On Wed, 11 May 2022 03:30:31 -0500, BGB wrote:
>> My comment was ambiguous in this case, more in relation to the 80186
>> being not entirely binary compatible with software written for the 8086
>> (so IBM went from 8086 to 80286).
>>
>> Goes and looks at some of the chips, and despite multiple chips of this
>> era having used DIP40, the pin orderings are almost completely different
>> between each chip.
>
>The NEC V30/V20 implemented the 80186 instructions and had the same
>pinouts as the 8086/8088.

The V20/V30 also has additional instructions not found in either and a
8080 emulation mode, but critically it *IS* possible to make a fully
PC compatible machine with it while the same isn't possible using an
80188/80186.

The 8018x models included lots of the auxiliary hardware to reduce the
chip count, but because IBM had used a number of things that was
"reserved by Intel" on the 808x that then conflicted with the 8018x
hardware mappings, oops. I don't remember the details, I think it was
IRQ and/or DMA?

There was a number "DOS compatible" machines out for a while using
8018x chips but they died off pretty quickly because it soon became
clear that "only" being DOS compatible was a massive disadvantage, to
sell it had to be PC hardware compatible or people would complain that
it didn't work correctly and return it.

For the '286 and up Intel ended up having to accept the choices IBM
had done.

>They were also fairly easy to buy as an upgrade for PCs.

In fact the V20/V30 chips were common enough that there was at least
three different manufacturer, NEC (original designer), Sony and Sharp.

And yes, they were sold both as upgrades and in complete machines, you
can still find people on Youtube upgrading retro computers with them.

Pages:12345
server_pubkey.txt

rocksolid light 0.9.7
clearnet tor