Prev: ------->>>FREE MAC<<<-------
Next: Far and near pointers on the 80286 and later
From: Jonathan de Boyne Pollard on 22 Mar 2010 03:25
>
>
> I liked the 6809 instruction set, and *really* like the 68000
> instruction set.
>
I'll second that (since no-one else in the thread has).

From: vandys on 22 Mar 2010 10:39
In alt.sys.pdp10 Jonathan de Boyne Pollard <J.deBoynePollard-newsgroups(a)ntlworld.com> wrote:
>> I liked the 6809 instruction set, and *really* like the 68000
>> instruction set.
> I'll second that (since no-one else in the thread has).

In the 16-bit world, the PDP-11 was easily my favorite. Very, very regular,
with just enough registers but without overloading the instruction encoding.
The Vax went overboard IMHO--in the 32/64-bit world MIPS seems like the sweet
spot. I'm glad MIPS architecture is still around, although unfortunately not
so much in desktops and servers.

--
Andy Valencia
Home page: http://www.vsta.org/andy/
To contact me: http://www.vsta.org/contact/andy.html
From: 1022 guy on 22 Mar 2010 13:50
Please stop crossposting to alt.sys.pdp10
From: Peter Flass on 22 Mar 2010 17:30
vandys(a)vsta.org wrote:
> In alt.sys.pdp10 Jonathan de Boyne Pollard <J.deBoynePollard-newsgroups(a)ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>> I liked the 6809 instruction set, and *really* like the 68000
>>> instruction set.
>> I'll second that (since no-one else in the thread has).
>
> In the 16-bit world, the PDP-11 was easily my favorite. Very, very regular,
> with just enough registers but without overloading the instruction encoding.
> The Vax went overboard IMHO--in the 32/64-bit world MIPS seems like the sweet
> spot. I'm glad MIPS architecture is still around, although unfortunately not
> so much in desktops and servers.
>

Wait until the cheap Chinese netbooks get here.
From: Jonathan de Boyne Pollard on 22 Mar 2010 18:19
>
>>>
>>> I liked the 6809 instruction set, and *really* like the 68000
>>> instruction set.
>>>
>> I'll second that (since no-one else in the thread has).
>>
> No-one?
>
I was surprised, too. (-:

> OK. I spent a while once converting code from Z180 to 68HC11.
> The 68- code consistently came out a few percent smaller and faster.
> It seemed to be because of
> * the dual A and B accumulators
> * the more compact conditional branch coding.
> ? more compact coding for X register indexing. (Y/IY was about the same.)
>
My likes of the instruction set aren't based so much upon performance
data, but upon the other things mentioned elsewhere in this thread,
including the ease with which it was possible to convert from machine
code to assembly language, and the whole
let's-just-encode-all-registers-with-a-uniform-encoding idea. The
difference between X, Y, U, and S indexed and indirect addressing in the
6809 is a simple uniform set of two-bit patterns.
 |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Prev: ------->>>FREE MAC<<<-------
Next: Far and near pointers on the 80286 and later