6 May
2007
6 May
'07
7:39 p.m.
On Sun, May 06, 2007 at 02:22:00PM -0400, Brad Parker wrote:
"Chuck Guzis" wrote:
Right, and I was trying to point out, that FPGA-implemented CPU
architecture isn't anything like the variety of commonly availble CPU
architectures that there were in the 60's/70's and earlier. Back then,
every manufacturer (pretty much) had their own architectures, and
"commonly" availble machines might have 8, 12, 16, 32, 36, 60-bit, etc
CPUs, or use 1's complement arithmatic (or magnitude and sign), instead
of 2's complement. (Or, a non-base-2 numbering scheme such as BCD,
2-4-2-1, hollerith code, etc.)
Richard seemed to be claiming that there was such a variety today of
commonly-availbe general-purpose CPUs (because of FPGAs), but maybe I
just mis-understood him.
Pat
--
Purdue University ITAP/RCAC --- http://www.rcac.purdue.edu/
The Computer Refuge --- http://computer-refuge.org
On 6 May 2007 at 11:54, Patrick Finnegan wrote:
> I challenge you to come up with the name of a single product that someone
> can purchase right now, which uses an FPGA-implemented CPU, which is
> general-purpose, and reasonably widely available.
I can't name a general purpose one, but I can name a number of
application specific embedded systems which you can buy right now (if
you have a big checkbook :-) which have fpga-implemented cpu's. I'm
working on two different ones right now.
but that probably was your point. I just wanted to point out that
they do exist and people do program them, but it's not a generalist
thing.