The PERQ is
one of the few machines that makes no hardwae assumptions
about the machine code instruciton set. So it is equally (in)efficient
and implementing just about anything.
Well, that's true in a sense -- the PERQ's hardware *is* optimized for
building microcode to execute bytecode (hence the system's heavy use of
Weel, sort-of. There is an 8 byte buffer which can be automaticlaly laoed
with a quadword of memeory And there s a way to use the byecode as part
of the addess for a microcode jump (basically a 256-wway fork).
But there is nothing in the hardware that assume a particualr bytecode.
No hardwired bits of decode logic.
Obviosuly a 65536 (16 bit) fork would be impossible o na machien with
only 4K or 16K fo control store. But there is, AFAIk, nothing to stop a
microprogramemr writign code to extract fields from a 16 bit machien
instrucion and feed therm int othe fork logic. So implementing a 16 bit
instrucion set would not be hard or inefficient.
Pascal), the byte-wide opcode file and dispatch
mechanisms are provided in
the hardware to make this fairly quick. You *could* make it implement just
about anything, though. (I've often toyed with the idea of building a
68000 in PERQ microcode, though I've never had time to actually do anything
about it. An 8-bit microprocessor would be pretty easy, though...)
THere is a rumour that there was a PDP11-compatible microcode at 3RCC. I
know nothing about it, and AFAIK it doens't still exist :-(
-tony