Re: E2000 (Really Mainframe Architectures)

Article View: comp.arch

Article #21576

#21576

From: Mark Lord
Date: Mon, 05 Jun 1989 18:25

21 lines
1446 bytes

In article <184@dg.dg.com> uunet!dg!rec (Robert Cousins) writes:
>In article <26207@ames.arc.nasa.gov> lamaster@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Hugh LaMaster) writes:
>
>>a clearly and completely defined instruction set architecture 
>
>True there are many guilty here.  THis is why DG chose the 88K.  It
>supports these issues directly.  However, not many others do.
>
Alright.. enough gloating.

Not even the latest hot-rod from Moto meets this requirement.
There are a large number of instructions which can be encoded
differently by varying the numerous "don't care" bits in
the instruction words.  This isn't exactly the most "clearly
and completely defined instruction set" around (mind you, it
really looks okay on several other points).

-Mark
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Disclaimer:    Aliens from Mars made me post this!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Technical Details

Message-ID: <866@bnr-rsc.UUCP>

Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!bnr-vpa!bnr-rsc!mlord

References: <125@ssp1.idca.tds.philips.nl> <20752@winchester.mips.COM> <26207@ames.arc.nasa.gov> <184@dg.dg.com>

Show Full Headers

Complete Article Headers

Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!bnr-vpa!bnr-rsc!mlord
From: mlord@bnr-rsc.UUCP (Mark Lord)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: E2000 (Really Mainframe Architectures)
Keywords: 68k compatible, high-performance, Edgcore, Edge, Mainframe, 88k
Message-ID: <866@bnr-rsc.UUCP>
Date: 5 Jun 89 18:25:43 GMT
References: <125@ssp1.idca.tds.philips.nl> <20752@winchester.mips.COM> <26207@ames.arc.nasa.gov> <184@dg.dg.com>
Reply-To: mlord@bnr-rsc.UUCP (Mark Lord)
Distribution: comp.arch
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, Canada
Lines: 21

Reply to Parent Message