25 Aug
2021
25 Aug
'21
8:58 a.m.
On 2021-08-25 11:49 a.m., ben via cctalk wrote:
On 2021-08-25 1:25 a.m., Eric Smith via cctalk wrote:
That is not how C defines bytes or ints, fyi.
432 GDP instructions were bit-aligned in an instruction object, and
occupied anywhere from 6 to 344 bits.
Did not the IBM 7030 try a similar idea.
All this work to replace a punched card.
Funny how records where simple on decimal computers
and are mess on binary ones.
Although there are many reasons for the failures
of both the 432 and the
P7/BiiN processor, one they had in common was that their advanced
architectural features were especially suited to high level languages,
such
as Ada, and very poorly suited to low level languages, such as C. As
everyone knows, the world chose to standardize on C. The P7, and later
the
i960, could run C code perfectly well, but C code couldn't easily take
advantage of the advanced architectural capabilities of the P7/BiiN
processor.
C uses cheap tricks for speed. 8 bit bytes, 32 bit integers, taken from B. I have 21 bit CPU, with 3 7 bit bytes/word. Algol
would have a
PACK/UPACK function, and be fairly portable. C on the other hand a mess.
Ok. I don't have 21 bit cpu, but I have this spare FPGA card ...
world chose to standardize on C.
More like
the same 32 bit/ 8 bit bytes vanilla cpu, with push and pop
on the stack. Can't have near/far pointers with some intel products
so we need new standard for the non PDP/11 or VAX computers, and again
and again...
Ben.