Article View: comp.os.linux.hardware
Article #834Re: P4 vs Athlon for Linux latexing, is gcc-2.95 responsible?
From: Bitey
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2002 01:07
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2002 01:07
29 lines
2766 bytes
2766 bytes
On 18 Jun 2002 11:45:42 +0200, 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, 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. didn't the 8080/8086 had a shared data/memory bus, now thats a wondeful design decsion...it would be fine for some embedded application....but not as the CPU in a PC > >So you can still translate 8080 assembly language straight and 1:1 to >today's P4 processors.
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<95mvgukpc993tcite11gntmdrcndi8iiio@4ax.com>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!nntp-relay.ihug.net!ihug.co.nz!newsfeed.media.kyoto-u.ac.jp!snewsf0.syd.ops.aspac.uu.net!ozemail.com.au!not-for-mailReferences:
<3D0B57CB.5060406@nospam.com> <cVYO8.93284$pw3.4355@sccrnsc03> <MPG.1776a491ca74b5bf989edd@powernews.libero.it> <1fdyury.16lgkkf1d22zw9N%real-address-in-sig@flur.bltigibbet> <x5it4h2d58.fsf@tupik.goethe.zz> <1fdyxzl.1eky32lcx38cvN%real-address-in-sig@flur.bltigibbet> <x58z5c3oop.fsf@tupik.goethe.zz>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: f9e16,ea3300a83f1f851c X-Google-Attributes: gidf9e16,public X-Google-Thread: f65d0,ea3300a83f1f851c X-Google-Attributes: gidf65d0,public X-Google-Thread: 102b32,ea3300a83f1f851c X-Google-Attributes: gid102b32,public X-Google-Thread: 1045b9,ea3300a83f1f851c X-Google-Attributes: gid1045b9,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-06-18 18:07:09 PST Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!nntp-relay.ihug.net!ihug.co.nz!newsfeed.media.kyoto-u.ac.jp!snewsf0.syd.ops.aspac.uu.net!ozemail.com.au!not-for-mail From: Bitey <no@spamless.com> Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.hardware,gnu.gcc,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.text.tex Subject: Re: P4 vs Athlon for Linux latexing, is gcc-2.95 responsible? Message-ID: <95mvgukpc993tcite11gntmdrcndi8iiio@4ax.com> References: <3D0B57CB.5060406@nospam.com> <cVYO8.93284$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> X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 30 NNTP-Posting-Host: srs9-116-22.wire.wiredcity.com.au X-Trace: ozemail.com.au 1024448828 203.161.116.22 (Wed, 19 Jun 2002 11:07:08 EST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2002 11:07:08 EST Organization: OzEmail Ltd, Australia Distribution: world Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2002 09:07:37 +0800