22 Sep
2001
22 Sep
'01
5:58 a.m.
From: Bob Shannon <bshannon(a)tiac.net>
I understand your confusion here, but in this case there already is
something
defined as microcode. Simply adding another layer of
complexity does
not change
the underlaying microcode that runs directly on the
hardware, its still
the microcode
of the engine. This underlaying microcode still
implements the
instruction set of
the physical CPU hardware.
Because what your calling a microcoded engine is really running as your
microcode
something that used to be called macrocoding. IE: your "microcode"
engine a Pentium
understands yet another lower level code (internal pentium microcode).
In the end what you have been decribing is emulation. If your pentium
drove hardware
that was <registers and ALU> say 36 bits wide and ran code to drive it as
say a KL-10A
then the pentium would be a fully macrocoded microengine.
It's does not say a Pentium running dedicated code to emulate any machine
in such
a way as to hide the pentium completely is not a useful device.
The terminology of microcomputers was laid down a long time ago and if
you change meanings or the application of said meanings you invoke
confusion.
Allison
8452
days inactive
8452
days old
0 comments
1 participants
participants (1)
-
ajp166＠bellatlantic.net