Re: P4 vs Athlon for Linux latexing, is gcc-2.95 responsible?

Article View: comp.os.linux.hardware

Article #825

Back to comp.os.linux.hardware Previous Next

#825

From: David Kastrup
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2002 09:45

25 lines
2713 bytes

real-address-in-sig@flur.bltigibbet (Rowland McDonnell) writes:

> David Kastrup <David.Kastrup@t-online.de> wrote:
> 
> > And the
> > 8080 still was a rather clean design.  The Z80, in constrast, was
> > convenient but awful: the price you paid for some of its features was
> > prohibitively high.
> 
> Hmm...  Maybe, maybe - but was there anything missing from the Z80
> compared to the 8080?

No, it was upwards machine code compatible, but the assembly language
was more "natural" (as long as you did not use the upward compatible
TECO assembly language).  You could convert 8080 assembly language to
8086 assembly language mechanically (register set and command set
matched, even though binaries didn't), and 8080 was based on the same
design as the 4004.

So you can still translate 8080 assembly language straight and 1:1 to
today's P4 processors.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
Email: David.Kastrup@t-online.de

Technical Details

Message-ID: <x58z5c3oop.fsf@tupik.goethe.zz>

Path:

arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!newsmm01.sul.t-online.com!t-online.de!news.t-online.com!not-for-mail

References:

<3D0B57CB.5060406@nospam.com> <cVYO8.93284$pw3.4355@sccrnsc03> <MPG.1776a491ca74b5bf989edd@powernews.libero.it> <1fdyury.16lgkkf1d22zw9N%real-address-in-sig@flur.bltigibbet> <x5it4h2d58.fsf@tupik.goethe.zz> <1fdyxzl.1eky32lcx38cvN%real-address-in-sig@flur.bltigibbet>

Show Full Headers

Complete Article Headers

X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: f9e16,ea3300a83f1f851c
X-Google-Attributes: gidf9e16,public
X-Google-Thread: 102b32,ea3300a83f1f851c
X-Google-Attributes: gid102b32,public
X-Google-Thread: 1045b9,ea3300a83f1f851c
X-Google-Attributes: gid1045b9,public
X-Google-Thread: f65d0,ea3300a83f1f851c
X-Google-Attributes: gidf65d0,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-06-18 02:50:03 PST
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!newsmm01.sul.t-online.com!t-online.de!news.t-online.com!not-for-mail
From: David Kastrup <David.Kastrup@t-online.de>
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.hardware,gnu.gcc,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.text.tex
Subject: Re: P4  vs Athlon for Linux latexing, is gcc-2.95 responsible?
Date: 18 Jun 2002 11:45:42 +0200
Organization: T-Online
Lines: 25
Sender: dak@tupik.goethe.zz
Message-ID: <x58z5c3oop.fsf@tupik.goethe.zz>
References: <3D0B57CB.5060406@nospam.com> <cVYO8.93284$pw3.4355@sccrnsc03> <MPG.1776a491ca74b5bf989edd@powernews.libero.it> <1fdyury.16lgkkf1d22zw9N%real-address-in-sig@flur.bltigibbet> <x5it4h2d58.fsf@tupik.goethe.zz> <1fdyxzl.1eky32lcx38cvN%real-address-in-sig@flur.bltigibbet>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Trace: news.t-online.com 1024393617 03 1046 VaDpb-QSGABvm 020618 09:46:57
X-Complaints-To: abuse@t-online.com
X-Sender: 520018396234-0001@t-dialin.net
X-Face: 2FEFf>]>q>2iw=B6,xrUubRI>pR&Ml9=ao@P@i)L:\urd*t9M~y1^:+Y]'C0~{mAl`oQuAl
 \!3KEIp?*w`|bL5qr,H)LFO6Q=qx~iH4DN;i";/yuIsqbLLCh/!U#X[S~(5eZ41to5f%E@'ELIi$t^
 Vc\LWP@J5p^rst0+('>Er0=^1{]M9!p?&:\z]|;&=NP3AhB!B_bi^]Pfkw
User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.3.50

Reply to Parent Message