[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [f-cpu] Late answer



Thomas Lavergne wrote:

> In the discution about loadcons, personnaly I agree with Michael Riepe
> solution, because it's possibly a bit more difficult to implement in
> hardware side (but I'm not sure... ) but it's a lot simpler and more
> powerfull in software side.
> And personnaly I think that the design of a cpu is to find a good middle
> between software and hardware.
> 
> If you look at the x86 architecture, it was designed by hardware man,
> and look at the 68000 it was designed by software man, and all have
> problems, I think we must keep the two side in mind.

Right now it is hard to tell just how good the F-Cpu is with software,
since none has been written. It is in the little werd segments of
program
code that you discover how well or bad your computer design is. Typical
C code or O/S Calls look good but how well does it behave for a
handwritten
interface for some unknown fast function?
Once the documentaion is final, some static programs hand assembled
and desk debugged for common but dumb routines, block moves, strings
and multiplies/divides using both simple instructions and higher level
ones, to get a feel for the machine.
Playing with my CPU design right now flags are the bottle neck, and need
to be cleaned up.
*************************************************************
To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to majordomo@seul.org with
unsubscribe f-cpu       in the body. http://f-cpu.seul.org/