Article View: comp.os.linux.hardware
Article #826Re: P4 vs Athlon for Linux latexing, is gcc-2.95 responsible?
From: Rowland McDonnell
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2002 12:00
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2002 12:00
53 lines
3387 bytes
3387 bytes
David Kastrup <David.Kastrup@t-online.de> wrote:
> 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,
Righto - ta. (memory told me that was the case). So if the 8080's a
rather clean design and the Z80 has everything the 8080 has, how can the
Z80 be awful?
> but the assembly language
> was more "natural"
Umm... So if the Z80's got a more natural assembly language, doesn't
that make it less awful than the 8080?
> (as long as you did not use the upward compatible
> TECO assembly language).
Uhuh.
> You could convert 8080 assembly language to
> 8086 assembly language mechanically (register set and command set
> matched, even though binaries didn't),
So I'd been told - but you seem to be a bit more authoritative than
most...
> 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.
Still! Coo. Ta.
Rowland.
--
Remove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell@dog.physics.org
PGP pub key 0x62DCCA78 Sorry - the spam got to me
http://www.mag-uk.org
UK biker? Join MAG and help keep bureaucracy at bay
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<1fdz2df.191or1l176qjmiN%real-address-in-sig@flur.bltigibbet>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!cyclone.bc.net!newsfeed.media.kyoto-u.ac.jp!newsfeed.icl.net!peer.news.zetnet.net!news.uklinux.net!real-address-in-sigReferences:
<3D0B57CB.5060406@nospam.com> <cVYO8.93284$pw3.4355@sccrnsc03> <MPG.1776a491ca74b5bf989edd@powernews.libero.it> <1fdyury.16lgkkf1d22zw9N%real-address-in-sig@flur.bltigibbet> <x5it4h2d58.fsf@tupik.goethe.zz> <1fdyxzl.1eky32lcx38cvN%real-address-in-sig@flur.bltigibbet> <x58z5c3oop.fsf@tupik.goethe.zz>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: f9e16,ea3300a83f1f851c
X-Google-Attributes: gidf9e16,public
X-Google-Thread: 1045b9,ea3300a83f1f851c
X-Google-Attributes: gid1045b9,public
X-Google-Thread: 102b32,ea3300a83f1f851c
X-Google-Attributes: gid102b32,public
X-Google-Thread: f65d0,ea3300a83f1f851c
X-Google-Attributes: gidf65d0,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-06-18 05:01:13 PST
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!cyclone.bc.net!newsfeed.media.kyoto-u.ac.jp!newsfeed.icl.net!peer.news.zetnet.net!news.uklinux.net!real-address-in-sig
From: real-address-in-sig@flur.bltigibbet (Rowland McDonnell)
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.hardware,gnu.gcc,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.text.tex
Subject: Re: P4 vs Athlon for Linux latexing, is gcc-2.95 responsible?
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2002 13:00:57 +0100
Organization: The Pietertje Geeltje van der Sluis fan club
Lines: 53
Message-ID: <1fdz2df.191or1l176qjmiN%real-address-in-sig@flur.bltigibbet>
References: <3D0B57CB.5060406@nospam.com> <cVYO8.93284$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> <x58z5c3oop.fsf@tupik.goethe.zz>
NNTP-Posting-Host: bts-0233.dialup.zetnet.co.uk
X-Trace: s1.uklinux.net 1024401653 14097 194.247.48.233 (18 Jun 2002 12:00:53 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@uklinux.net
NNTP-Posting-Date: 18 Jun 2002 12:00:53 GMT
X-Face: (Erpd5b^8lQe0$9[22T;{kxJrMyksf[`sY^%O>$&p-T0LY;d.*%tDm8)~p}M"
02vxDj5)SRrR^Y@@kQoTf+hU"SNc#=u~S(X{@}:5uVIZXMV/*\$:[3KGy~`!N>C{_
User-Agent: MacSOUP/2.4.6