Well Ben
I'll tell you a secret. I work for one of those two companies.
Processors are designed from such code, simulated and then
synthesized to silicon gates. I don't think that is too much of a
secret.
How the architecture is done is very much a secret. I can tell you that it is more
complicated than one person can completely understand. It is a team effort with many
people working from a general description of what each part does and how it should
interact. Some work only on arrays while others work on floating point alu's and so
on.
Each processor generation shares only a little with previous designs. To try to describe
to someone outside how one of todays processor worked inside would require a book for each
generation. Some parts are the same while other are vastly different.
It is interesting that I just read an article about the Chinese creating a faster supper
computer. I suspect that many might think they did it with RISK design while most US made
machines were stuck in CISC machines.
I don't have the real inside scoop but I can tell you what I think. Processors made
today are general purpose. Floating point is a side function and not where the most
emphasis is placed. I suspect that the Chinese designed the processors they used
specifically to do floating point and were not the reuse of general purpose processors.
The RISK/CISC is really not even relevant in todays processors since the main limiting
factor is memory access bandwidth and effective use of caches. The instruction set used is
only to deal with older software.
Dwight
________________________________
From: cctalk <cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org> on behalf of ben <bfranchuk at
jetnet.ab.ca>
Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2016 11:53:20 AM
To: cctalk at
classiccmp.org
Subject: Re: CDC 6600 emulation - was Re: How do they make Verilog code for unknown ICs?
On 6/21/2016 9:47 AM, dwight wrote:
One has to realize that all complex chips are done in
Verilog or
VHDL. Many old designs in processors can be re-implemented from
timing and bus diagrams.
Where do you get this info? Most of the little stuff I have seen
it is still graphic layout and Intel (or IBM ...) is not going to
tell you their design style.
This is no longer possible with todays processors like
Intel or AMD
processors. The complexity of possible sequential events are more
than is practical to try to analyze from the pins.
One can implement an instruction set but you'll never get close to
the bus activity of current processors.
Who knows what secrets the cache holds?
I would say that the most important part of either
language is the
ability to describe the time of simultaneous events. This is unlike
most programs written in C or such. Of course, one can write a
simulation language in C.
And a useless feature in my view. Real hardware has real delays
and simulation is prone errors translating to the real hardware.
Ben.
Dwight
PS: With the speed of modern transistors routing capacitance
and large die size; I think Vacuum tube/Drum memory might be better
model for modern computing.