20 September 2018, 21:57 | #501 | |
Registered User
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Grimstad / Norway
Posts: 848
|
Quote:
And I'm pretty sure I passed by one of the Atari forums where they were talking about a decode and had a file of the microcode along with a description of the long form opcodes that the internal microcode was executing. Oh, and somewhere I read that you could futz some of the physical pins to make it dump out its internal microcode! |
|
06 October 2018, 21:38 | #502 | ||
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: Ozherele
Posts: 229
|
I'm very sorry for a big delay. At first I should inform that I have just added a new sentence to my article;
Quote:
Quote:
I have got "litwr, you do not have permission to access this page." So you evaded to show your code. I'm sure that there is something wrong with it. Last edited by litwr; 07 October 2018 at 19:31. |
||
06 October 2018, 21:50 | #503 | |
Going nowhere
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: United Kingdom
Age: 50
Posts: 9,014
|
Quote:
1). Meynaf clearly showed you how to get access to "the zone". 2). Meynaf clearly uploaded the file to the zone inspite of your no show. 3). The file Meynaf is STILL there in the zone, the instructions Meynaf gave you to get access to the zone is STILL there in THIS thread on page 25 Your SELECTIVE reading doesn't do you any favours. Go look again! |
|
07 October 2018, 19:27 | #504 | |
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: Ozherele
Posts: 229
|
Quote:
|
|
08 October 2018, 09:43 | #505 | ||||
son of 68k
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Lyon / France
Age: 51
Posts: 5,335
|
Quote:
And yes it's not DX that's used as a loop counter, it's CX. But it does not change the fact you can not choose which register it is ! Quote:
But it has been tested and it works. If you say there is something unfair with the OS routines i have used, i'll remind you that your x86 code is headerless .COM where Amiga programs have to account for the hunk format data so this compensates that... Quote:
When i speak about 68k i don't speak about 68000 but about the 680x0 family in general. I said several times i don't code much for 68000 anymore. In fact i don't like old 68000. But anyway pure 68000 code wouldn't be much larger than this one (only mul & div code needs to be changed). Quote:
Else i did not touch the core code, which would be (a little) smaller again if performance wasn't an issue (or if code was written for 68060). |
||||
13 October 2018, 19:21 | #506 |
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: Ozherele
Posts: 229
|
@meynaf Your code is as fast as mine! But you have just replaced i/o-routines for input and output text using high-level Amiga built-in ROM functions - it's not completely fair. I can replace PR0000 and getnum with a slower but lesser in size routines and this gives 80386 the first position again.
It is interesting that when I compile your code with cross-assembler vasm I get a bit different binary file. It has the same size but differs in 3 bytes. It shows again that 68k has too much redundancy in its ISA. I can resume my point about why 68k lost and Intel and ARM won. 68000 and 68020 has too much redundancy in their ISA, too much complexity. When time was come to convert electronics to the new fast 6502/ARM-like standards it was much more difficult for Motorola with 68k than for Intel with x86. It was not unique. DEC completely abandoned its famous VAX series in the favor of new RISC Alpha because it was impossible to convert electronics of the huge VAX ISA. BTW this conversion is very costly and difficult therefore even today for x86 is faster to execute two instructions DEC CX and JNZ loop, than one LOOP loop. So number of x86 instructions are still not converted for the fast execution. 68k orthogonality gives less flexibility for such maneuvers. Motorola had to move towards PowerPC, because ARM was too fast. It is fascinating that ARM @8MHz could outperform 68030 @25MHz. |
13 October 2018, 21:52 | #507 | ||||||
son of 68k
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Lyon / France
Age: 51
Posts: 5,335
|
Quote:
Either you allow using OS features or you do not. In either case, 80386 can't get first position. Also remember all the code that's needed to open libs on the Amiga. Counting that against the 68k is really unfair so don't grumble i used OS functions. Quote:
Quote:
Intel won because of the IBM 5150. Arm won because it's available for everyone to build. Quote:
Quote:
Actually 68k gives more flexibility for such maneuvers. Quote:
And todays x86 outperform todays ARM. Not to mention it may also be fascinating that ARM @8Mhz could outperform 80386 @25Mhz. All that is meaningless. |
||||||
13 October 2018, 21:57 | #508 |
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: UK
Posts: 2,917
|
At the risk of re-igniting a flame war. IMHO ARM won not just because it was available for everyone to build but because of its insanely low power consumption. (Makes it very appealing for mobile)
EDIT: but ARM was stupid until Thumb came along. As much as I love ARM it need far too much RAM. |
13 October 2018, 22:10 | #509 | |
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: Ozherele
Posts: 229
|
Quote:
IMHO COM-file format is quite a fair way to get much code density. It shows the advantages of the segment registers. |
|
14 October 2018, 13:50 | #510 |
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Stockholm
Posts: 4,342
|
IBM PC was the only factor. Apart from the PC and a few failed school computers (based on 80186), I can't come up with a single design built around the x86. The 68000 was everywhere, from workstations to game consoles, from home computers to print servers, from arcade machines to lab instruments.
|
14 October 2018, 22:31 | #511 | |
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: Ozherele
Posts: 229
|
Quote:
IMHO it is quite natural to consider that ARM began the era of fast processors and Motorola couldn't convert its huge ISA for the new technology fast enough. Motorola wanted to share DEC VAX success in the late 70s but it caused the necessity to share its failure too in the beginning of 90s. I can repeat Intel and ARM didn't follow DEC or IBM/370 - they just created better processors. On the contrary Motorola and National Semiconductor tried to create a processor with ISA similar to VAX. BTW computers for Unix also needed something better than 68k so Sun developed its famous SPARC processor for them and became the leader for that market. It didn' use x86 even despite of the presence of a terrible monster "IBM PC". |
|
15 October 2018, 09:28 | #512 | ||
son of 68k
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Lyon / France
Age: 51
Posts: 5,335
|
Quote:
Quote:
On the 68k we could have shown the advantages of position-independent code, however the OS can't run headerless code directly. Remove 36 bytes out of the Amiga version you currently have and it beats 386 again doesn't it ? Besides, a good cpu should have a good OS so using the OS routines for formatting is showing the advantages of a good ISA in comparison to a poor one Else we have the overhead of opening dos.library and you dare to count that against 68k's code density... Anyway, perhaps 68k can still beat x86 even with these handicaps you have added (hunk headers, system call overhead, lack of formatting OS routines). I have not removed every possible byte in here, just put it under 600 bytes to show you it was possible... |
||
15 October 2018, 10:37 | #513 |
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Warsaw/Poland
Age: 55
Posts: 2,003
|
I dont checked/see meynaf code, but f.e for open dos.library, private open library can be used (12 bytes shortest, if i remember right). I dont think that x86 can has any chance with 68k with code denisty, maybe accidentally only. I see exe from many games for Amiga and PC from 1989 to 1992 years, and always PC exe was bigger, mostly about 50%.
|
15 October 2018, 11:19 | #514 | |
Defendit numerus
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Crossing the Rubicon
Age: 53
Posts: 4,479
|
Quote:
Or maybe exist some obscure BCPL programming practice? |
|
15 October 2018, 12:22 | #515 | |
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Warsaw/Poland
Age: 55
Posts: 2,003
|
Quote:
Here is example: Code:
Init movem.l D2/D6/D7/A3-A6,-(SP) move.l A6,A5 ; exec base moveq #4,D0 ; dos library jsr -$32A(A6) ; TaggedOpenLibrary move.l D0,D7 ; dos base beq.b Error lea LIBSworkbench.MSG(PC),A0 move.l A0,D1 moveq #-2,D2 move.l D7,A6 ; dos base jsr -$54(A6) ; Lock move.l D0,D6 beq.b AllocVec move.l D6,D1 jsr -$5A(A6) ; UnLock move.l A5,A6 bra.b Close Last edited by Don_Adan; 15 October 2018 at 12:30. |
|
15 October 2018, 12:30 | #516 |
Defendit numerus
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Crossing the Rubicon
Age: 53
Posts: 4,479
|
|
15 October 2018, 12:31 | #517 |
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Warsaw/Poland
Age: 55
Posts: 2,003
|
For dos.library moveq #4,d0 and jsr -$32A(A6).
|
15 October 2018, 12:39 | #518 |
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Warsaw/Poland
Age: 55
Posts: 2,003
|
No, this is useful only for ROM 3.0 or higher programs/code. But if for some Amiga assemblers/compilers standard Amiga hunks relocation are short (word) hunks from ROM 3.0 too, then I dont see disadvantages to use this version too. If you assemble your programs with short word relocation, it can be runned only for ROM 3.0 and even you dont need to use ROM check version in your code
|
15 October 2018, 15:07 | #519 | ||||||||
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Germany
Posts: 1,920
|
You are happily mixing technical facts collected from several decades to make your point. All your reasoning relies on inadmissible hindsight.
Quote:
Quote:
There are no technical reasons why a 68k ISA could not be as fast or faster than the x86 counterpart. In fact, the 060 was a very good competitor to the Pentium and also faster than the first PowerPC processors. The reason why CISC was abandoned was that no other company than Intel could afford the huge R&D effort it took to make the ugly and nonorthogonal ISA that fast. RISC was introduced to make it more economical to develop a processor. Abandoning 68k in favour of the PowerPC ISA was a management-driven decision. There was less legacy-software intertia than in the x86 campus (Apple, after all, was agreeing to the move to PPC) and processor development was becoming cheaper due to moving to a RISC ISA. Were there needlessly complex parts in the 68k ISA? Yes, of course. Did that mean that the 68k couldn't have been made to compete with x86 performancewise? Heck, no, of course not. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Even AMD cannot keep up with Intel even though they are building the same ISA. It's because of the MONEY that only Intel can put into R&D and their fabrication process which is at least one generation ahead of all the competition. |
||||||||
15 October 2018, 15:58 | #520 |
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 3,423
|
If we're going to be talking about 'happiness' with a particular ISA, it might be interesting to note you can still get brand new (produced in 2018), ROHS compliant 68000's right now. They might be a tad expensive at between 12 and 20ish euro's a piece, but still.
As far as I've been able to find, you can't do that with the Intel 8088/8086. It seems to no longer be produced. In other words, people are still willing to both make and buy 68000's nearly 40 years after their introduction. Yet no one seems interested in doing the same with the Intel 8086. To me, this is a pretty clear indication the 68000 clearly did something very right - not many tech products get to be sold for such a long time. And I'd wager this also shows that a lot of people were very happy with the 68000 and successors. If it had failed back in the 1990's, you wouldn't be able to still buy them new today. |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 2 (0 members and 2 guests) | |
Thread Tools | |
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Any software to see technical OS details? | necronom | support.Other | 3 | 02 April 2016 12:05 |
2-star rarity details? | stet | HOL suggestions and feedback | 0 | 14 December 2015 05:24 |
EAB's FTP details... | Basquemactee1 | project.Amiga File Server | 2 | 30 October 2013 22:54 |
req details for sdl | turrican3 | request.Other | 0 | 20 April 2008 22:06 |
Forum Details | BippyM | request.Other | 0 | 15 May 2006 00:56 |
|
|