7 Mar
2011
7 Mar
'11
4:08 p.m.
Richard wrote:
In article <4D756F00.6000706 at gmail.com>,
Jules Richardson <jules.richardson99 at gmail.com> writes:
Hmm, good point. I had it set to 78 (TB's default), now changed to 75 though :)
Yes, anything that includes a dedicated multiply
or divide instruction as
part of the instruction set; I suspect a lot of the early implementations
fall into the "simple shift-add" that I mentioned due to the lack/cost of
silicon.
(BTW, line lengths of about 75 or so characters are *much* more
friendly to quoting than line lenghts of *exactly* 80 characters.) I don't think the multiply implementation in the
IBM 701 was shift/add
microcode variety. That wouldn't have been very performant for its
intended purpose (scientific computing).
I'll have to have a look online and see if I can find any details. I see
that Booth's algorithm was 1951 - much earlier than I expected and a year
before the 701. I'm not sure when Wallace trees showed up...
cheers
Jules