Extremely CISC instructions

[ben]

On 2021-08-25 1:25 a.m., Eric Smith via cctalk wrote:
> 
> 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.