Is microprocessor an integrated circuit???

[Pig Bladder]

On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 15:04:20 -0500, Spehro Pefhany wrote:

I'll leave it to you to felch through the standard ...

Ewwwwww!
--
The Pig Bladder From Uranus, Still Waiting for
Some Hot Babe to Ask What My Favorite Planet Is.

 

[Ken Smith]

In article <h3dKd.4151$SP4.1563@trnddc07>,
Bradley1234 <someone@yahoo.com> wrote:
[...]

In computer memory, a byte is 8 bits, all standard addressing schemes are
based upon the byte level addressing.

There are many examples where the addressing is on a word basis and the
word is not 8 bits long. The DEC-10 was a very nice example of this. It
addressed 36 bit words and had 7 or 9 bit characters depending on the
application.



--
--
kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge

 

[Spehro Pefhany]

On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 21:29:49 GMT, the renowned "Bradley1234"
<someone@yahoo.com> wrote:

Now here is the sure-fire way to discern the incompetent, unqualified,
pretentious individual anywhere in the industry, anyone who would start out
by saying something to the effect of "Your limited experience..." or "Since
you are so inexperienced, but me, Im so worldly and all knowing..." or
"You should leave the high tech concepts to people who are more
experienced..."

Ive seen them in the industry, they hide the lack of ability by being the
first to call others incompetent, everything is rehearsed, they dont like
people watching them solve problems, they form into tight cliques and launch
office politics type attacks to defend their job. I seek out that attitude,
if I find it in my company? The person is fired about as surely as Donald
Trump fires people for his reasons.

Yeah, that L*rk*n fellow is a viper. Always attacking. And a terrible
employee, I'll bet. You might want to hold off on posting as long as
he's around here.


Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
speff@interlog.com Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com

 

[keith]

On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 00:32:39 +0000, Pig Bladder wrote:

On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 15:04:20 -0500, Spehro Pefhany wrote:

I'll leave it to you to felch through the standard ...

Ewwwwww!

Armageddon!

--
Keith

 

[Ken Smith]

In article <MPG.1c632d3c1abbcf239898a7@news.individual.net>,
Keith Williams <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:
[...]

Perhaps, but sometimes they're trying to tell you something.

With "10 bit byte" in google. I quickly found a newish (2003) document
that speaks of 10 bit bytes written by IBM of all people.

--
--
kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge

 

[Ben Bradley]

On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 21:30:02 GMT, "Bradley1234" <someone@yahoo.com>
wrote:

You can post that it is a can of grapes, but that doesn't make it so.

The vax-11/780 was not a microprocessor. Using microcode does not make a
microprocessor.

Well okay, if you say the definition is micro sized processor, then it
depends on your definition of what the word IS is.

Its a definition that I thought wasnt challenged, micro programmed processor

It appears you have two separate computer-related ideas mixed
together, which is pretty understandable since they both use the word
'micro.'
If I recall my computer history, microprogramming (instructions
controlling a CPU by the instruction addressing a wide ROM [or RAM]
whose outputs activate various parts of the CPU) was done many years
before the first microprocesor (a CPU on a single silicon chip) was
made.
If there's a correlation between these two, it's probably negative:
I understand many of the larger mainframe CPU's use microprogramming,
and smaller microprocessors use hard-wired logic exclusively.

There are many examples of microprocessors that didn't use microcode.

Hey cool, Im going to learn something new, I like to learn. Even though we
have an arbitrary definition going, where microprocessor might also mean
"purple monkey dishwasher"

PLEASE show an example of a microprocessor that doesnt use microcode

If Im wrong, Ill take back what I said

I know there are "processors" that are mechanical, but strictly a
microprocessor

-----
http://mindspring.com/~benbradley

 

[Keith Williams]

In article <1106840006.750031.201010@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
microx@ieee.org says...

Well, no offense, but 2005 - 30 = 1975 > 1972 (the year of the 4004
processor), so maybe you weren't around before the change of meaning.
;-)

The term wasn't used before ("microcode" and "microcoded processor"
were). And your arithmetic is close enough, but I did say "over". ;-)

--
Keith

 

[Mark Zenier]

In article <uZTJd.187$Eh5.115@trnddc04>, Bradley1234 <someone@yahoo.com> wrote:

PLEASE show an example of a microprocessor that doesnt use microcode

Most of them have their control unit logic implemented in a PLA
(Programmable Logic Array) which directly implements a two level logic
equation. With microcode, there would be an address that was decoded
to provide a word (or row) of the ROM's contents. There's no such thing
as an address in a PLA, just inputs and outputs.

Mark Zenier mzenier@eskimo.com Washington State resident

 

[Mark Zenier]

In article <pan.2005.01.26.22.34.49.251317@example.net>,
Rich Grise <rich@example.net> wrote:

So, actually, the microprogram in a microprocessor should actually be
called a picoprogram, or picocode! ;-)

The 68000 had a two level microcode system to save space
and the second level was called the nanoprogram.

Mark Zenier mzenier@eskimo.com Washington State resident

 

[Keith Williams]

In article <ctdto9$52o$1@eskinews.eskimo.com>, mzenier@eskimo.com
says...

In article <uZTJd.187$Eh5.115@trnddc04>, Bradley1234 <someone@yahoo.com> wrote:
PLEASE show an example of a microprocessor that doesnt use microcode

Most of them have their control unit logic implemented in a PLA
(Programmable Logic Array) which directly implements a two level logic
equation. With microcode, there would be an address that was decoded
to provide a word (or row) of the ROM's contents. There's no such thing
as an address in a PLA, just inputs and outputs.

One can also argue (rightly) that a PLA is nothing but a sparse ROM,
thus microcode. The instruction decoder "PLA" in the processor I work
on is synthesized into gates. Is that a "PLA", "microcode", or "hard-
wired"? Thar be dragons... ;-)

--
Keith

 

[Rich Grise]

On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 13:01:11 -0500, Keith Williams wrote:

In article <ctdto9$52o$1@eskinews.eskimo.com>, mzenier@eskimo.com
says...
In article <uZTJd.187$Eh5.115@trnddc04>, Bradley1234 <someone@yahoo.com> wrote:
PLEASE show an example of a microprocessor that doesnt use microcode

Most of them have their control unit logic implemented in a PLA
(Programmable Logic Array) which directly implements a two level logic
equation. With microcode, there would be an address that was decoded
to provide a word (or row) of the ROM's contents. There's no such thing
as an address in a PLA, just inputs and outputs.

One can also argue (rightly) that a PLA is nothing but a sparse ROM,
thus microcode.

I'd say, the definitive factor here is, can you write a program? Is there
an instruction set?

The instruction decoder "PLA" in the processor I work
on is synthesized into gates. Is that a "PLA", "microcode", or "hard-
wired"? Thar be dragons... ;-)

Well, that's just it. What's the conceptual equivalent of a(an?) FFT when
transforming(translating?) a truth table to a program listing?

Microcode can be listed. Logic can only be drawn.
I have spoken! (so I'm probably wrong.) ;-P

Thanks!
Rich

 

[Rich Grise]

On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 07:55:23 -0800, John Larkin wrote:

On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 21:13:25 -0500, Spehro Pefhany
speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote:

On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 21:29:49 GMT, the renowned "Bradley1234"
someone@yahoo.com> wrote:

Now here is the sure-fire way to discern the incompetent, unqualified,
pretentious individual anywhere in the industry, anyone who would start out
by saying something to the effect of "Your limited experience..." or "Since
you are so inexperienced, but me, Im so worldly and all knowing..." or
"You should leave the high tech concepts to people who are more
experienced..."

Ive seen them in the industry, they hide the lack of ability by being the
first to call others incompetent, everything is rehearsed, they dont like
people watching them solve problems, they form into tight cliques and launch
office politics type attacks to defend their job. I seek out that attitude,
if I find it in my company? The person is fired about as surely as Donald
Trump fires people for his reasons.

Yeah, that L*rk*n fellow is a viper. Always attacking. And a terrible
employee, I'll bet. You might want to hold off on posting as long as
he's around here.


Hisssss. Or something.

John

Careful, John. You might scare Br*dl*y! ;-)

 

[Andrew Holme]

Keith Williams wrote:

In article <pan.2005.01.28.20.31.32.28264@example.net>,
richgrise@example.net says...
On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 13:01:11 -0500, Keith Williams wrote:

In article <ctdto9$52o$1@eskinews.eskimo.com>, mzenier@eskimo.com
says...
In article <uZTJd.187$Eh5.115@trnddc04>, Bradley1234
someone@yahoo.com> wrote:
PLEASE show an example of a microprocessor that doesnt use
microcode

Most of them have their control unit logic implemented in a PLA
(Programmable Logic Array) which directly implements a two level
logic equation. With microcode, there would be an address that
was decoded
to provide a word (or row) of the ROM's contents. There's no such
thing
as an address in a PLA, just inputs and outputs.

One can also argue (rightly) that a PLA is nothing but a sparse ROM,
thus microcode.

I'd say, the definitive factor here is, can you write a program? Is
there an instruction set?

A microprocessor without an instruction set is, umm, useless?

My preferred criteria is : Is there a micro-program counter?

On reflection: this makes the 6502 microcoded because the instruction
register and T state counter, which feed into the logic array, can be
thought of as high and low words of a micro-program address.

I can list this "PLA" microcode (I have the power, but it never
exists in hardware. It's converted by the synthesis tools from VHDL
into gates. What does that make it? Is it microprogrammed? The
source sure looks like a PLA. It's even called a PLA in the source.
It's random logic on the chip though.

Is there anything in your processor that resembles a micro-program counter?

I'm telling you that "thar be dragons" if you insist on defining
things with nice black lines.

Of course; but sometimes simplication / generalisation can be useful /
helpful for getting ideas across.

 

[Ken Smith]

In article <XyDKd.377$To.292@trnddc09>, Bradley1234 <someone@yahoo.com> wrote:
[...]

"Ken Smith" <kensmith@green.rahul.net> wrote in message
news:ctcg96$300$2@blue.rahul.net...
In article <MPG.1c632d3c1abbcf239898a7@news.individual.net>,
Keith Williams <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:
[...]
Perhaps, but sometimes they're trying to tell you something.

With "10 bit byte" in google. I quickly found a newish (2003) document
that speaks of 10 bit bytes written by IBM of all people.


Care to post a link to that document? Is it the currently accepted industry
standard as I asked?

I said from IBM. which is a small typewriter company and actually of
little importance in the computer business, but if you care to read the
document it is at their site as:

www.research.ibm.com/journal/rd/464/stigliani.pdf
--
--
kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge

 

[Bradley1234]

Not that I would defend IBM, its funny you reference them that way. I must
conclude you know a great deal about IBM

It appears in the article that the 8 bit byte is enclosed in a 10 bit
wrapper, probably a parity for every 4 bits?

I said from IBM. which is a small typewriter company and actually of
little importance in the computer business, but if you care to read the
document it is at their site as:

www.research.ibm.com/journal/rd/464/stigliani.pdf
--
--
kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge

 

[TCS]

On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 12:02:19 -0500, keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:

My preferred criteria is : Is there a micro-program counter?

Ah, so what about a processor that has no program counter? Is that not a
processor? Can it not be programmed? Does it not have programs?

PC != MPC

 

[keith]

On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 22:33:18 +0000, Bradley1234 wrote:

No I don't. YOu thought it was megabucks, so couldn't be bothered to buy
one (for $18). You're now showing that on top of being ignoran, your're
stupid, and now a liar. ...not a good day, overall.


The ISO appears to sell it for $399. Those kinds of publications are
pricey, thats a fact of life. If someone found it for $18 ? sounds like a
bargain

So buy it and read it. You're in for an eye-opener.

Ive seen it, there are lots of essay style sections, sub sections, legal
looking and not many pictures, I like books with pictures in them

None of which you've read or understood (or even seen - see above). You
were told somethign by your third-rate teachers at your fourth-rate
college (if you got that far) and believe them. Get a refund. They
defrauded you.


Or maybe Im so smart, so amazingly qualified and so experienced that Im not
afraid to be misinterpreted or misunderestimated

Or so arrogant that you cannot let go of a long held belief in the tooth
fairy after being told by your dentist that they don't exist. "But my
mommy wouldn't lie."

In hardware, a byte is 8 bits, period, case closed

Wrong. Get a refund on your tuition.

Im working on that, easier to squeeze water from a rock, those
crooks.

Si you admit that you're pig ignorant, but assume the rest of the world
has had an education as "good" as yours? Sorry, some of us have had
very good teachers. Experience; lots of it. Open minds help too. You
should try it some time.


I admit that I want a refund on some of the tuition I paid because the
school was incompetent, I was overqualified. You jump to conclusions,
not very open minded

They were incompetent, obviously. Your education is sorely lacking as a
result. Add that to your suit.

In the C language it has to represent -127 to + 127, hey thats a
coincidance
8 bits gives you that.

Nope (understand that I'm not a 'C' programmer, only a processor
developer). From: http://www.comeaucomputing.com/techtalk/

So you would say that in 8 bits (aka a "byte") you cannot represent
the range of -127 to +127? What would your math teacher say?

You are not only pig-ignorant, now you're adding *stupid* to the mix. A
"byte" is *not* defined as an eight-bit entity (as JL has said, that
would be the definition of an "octet"). Of course there are 256
possible values of an 8-bit entity (ignoring representations with two
values for zero, for instance). That's not the point! A byte is *not*
universally defined as being eight bits. Not nowhere, not nohow. It
may be defined as being eight buts for a particular ISA, but it's not a
universal definition.

I said an 8 bit byte can represent the range of -127 to +127 and you
said: "Nope"

You didn't say "8 bit byte". You said "byte". Even so, you're still
wrong. An 8 bit byte can store numbers from 0 to 255 (unsigned) or -128
to +127 (signed two's compliment).

The "nope" stands.

Its like arguing that the inch scale of measurement is arbitrary, its
not. With only a few rare exceptions in history, a byte is 8 bits, and
is the standard. We note with disk and memory sizes, they are rated in
Mega or Giga bytes. Network interface speeds in Mega bytes per second.

Its not rare and can be redefined. The definition of a "byte" is dot
fixed at a certain size. Get over it. Learn your lesson and move along.

Western Digital could double their disk size by saying a byte is now 16
bits wide.

If they were selling it to be used in a 16 bit byte machine, sure (wrong
way, but I get your drift). Since they're advertizing it (and it's
formatted for) a system that uses 8 bit bytes they have to be consistent
with the size.

I bet it torques your jaws that they measure the size in
decimal too.

One of the other factors in using the byte system is the Base 2 math,
and unless IM mistaken shifting left or right will double or divide by 2
the binary base 2 number. Designers would therefore prefer a byte that
is a multiple, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32

Six bit bytes were common. IIRC the CDC Ciber series had a 60bit
word and a 6bit byte. As has been noted IBM talks of a 10bit byte in one
of the I/O processors.

But since its already 8 bits, thats how its used.

Nope. It' used by the ignorant to mean eight bits, or it's understood by
the context that it's eight bits. A byte is in no way defined as being
eight bits though.

You are a processor developer? Are you familiar with the use of
signed/unsigned numbers?

Give me a f#@$!@# break. I was doing binary arithmetic when your
father was still s#@#$ yellow.

When a person begins losing a debate and has no declarative or
informative contribution, the discussion degrades into separate and
unique steps, personal attacks (pig stupid), then profanity, then rage,
then violence.

Violence? No. Frustration with a pig-headed troll? Certainly.

If you claim to have understood binary at that specific point in time?
you would be over 100 years old. Congratulations that you are coherent
and not senile

More than half that, but I was doing binary (and in all bases up to 32 -
got awkward above) in fifth grade, well more than forty years ago. You
simply sounded like a snot-nosed kid who thinks he knows everything.

How many bits are in a byte?

Although it's common that the number of bits in a byte is 8, this
is not so for every system. That's right, a byte is not always 8
bits. A byte is one of those terms which has an interesting
history and ends up meaning different things to different people.
For instance, there are some computers where it is 6, 7, 8, 9,
32-bits, and so on.

Oh suuuuure there are, and in South American jungles a byte can be 3
bamboo sticks? You may be confusing byte with word, a word is a
variable width unit that is relative to the architecture of the
processor or application. A byte is 8 bits today, even when its 9
bits.

You're hopeless. *I* didn't write the above you retard! I'm quoting
from the site referenced. Did you even do the search I suggested? Of
course not. You're happy with your ignorance.

Yes I researched the site, the oddball, erroneous, unauthorized uses of
the term "byte" exist. But the SAE measurement of inches has a better
chance to be converted to metric than the byte has a chance of being
other than 8 bits.

You're hopeless. I hope you're not involved in any engineering more
complicated than a toaster.

When a byte is represented as 9 bits, the 8 bits remain as the data the
extra bit is a parity bit, meaning its a type of wrapper component, not
a literal 9-bit word. If anyone in history combined 3 octal digits into
a 9 bit word? its technically not the same.

Did I say anything about parity or prepresentations of binary numbers?
I'm talking about sizeof(byte) *not* being fixed at eight. It is
*usually* equal to eight, but if you assume that it's a fact it will come
back to byte someone. ;-)

<snip>

Yet you havent shown where people, today, in business, use the byte
for MORE than 8 bits? Not in some novelty scenario 40 years ago
thats long gone, does Intel use a non 8-bit byte? Xilinx? Altera?
Microsoft?

IBM? Yes. The official 'C' Standard. Yes. Life? Yes. Get over it,
you're wrong.

Retard, you were arguing not a half-day ago that ninety thousand years
ago a "microprocessor" was defined as being a processor that was
microcoded (absolutely wrong). Now you decide that all processors made
*today* have eight-bit bytes, thus a byte is *defined* to be 8-bits.

Thats what it means, by the majority of the industry, and your failure
to provide any examples in the industry show that I was correct

I've proven your definition wrong by example. There are many

"microprocessors" that are *not* microprogrammed. There are many
microprogrammed processors that are *not* microprocessors. An IBM 360 is
hardly a microprocessor, though the "same architecture" some forty
years later, known as the z-Series are, in fact, microprocessors. Some
models are microprogrammed, some are hard-wired. The terms are othogonal.

Yet you've not shown one authoritative example of a VAX-11/780 being
called a "microprocessor".

The fact is that you're wrong, twice. In fact you haven't been right
about anything yet. ...but are pig-headed enough to continue on
fighting your 0-n-2 record. Give it up and flip burgers. You'll be a
lot less dangerous in a McD's.



Well then you wont want to know Ive contributed for years to make those
things that launch into orbit whatever they are called, go up and keep
the range safe so they fly up there and spin around or whatever they do.

I dont believe a McD's would hire me with my resume, too overqualified

They're afraid you couldn't learn the process.

Aside from pointing to data on the surface of the moon we cannot
read here
online, like specs costing $$ can you show where a byte is used
for more than 8 bits in the software industry?

Several systems had byte sizes other than 8-bits. If you want
references that aren't on "on the surface of the moon", even though
they are the *standards* which you're mistakenly using, try a search
on "6-bit byte" and report back. You gotta promise to report back
though or I won't do any more work for you.


Yes Ive heard of Octal, yes some people for a particular era/industry
adopted the word byte for 6 bits. The originator made it 8 bits
which has lasted and is the standard. In hardware, are there any non
8 bit byte devices?

You are off-the-chart stupid. A 6-bit byte is *still* a byte, whether
it's represented in octal or not. The "originator" of the term "byte"
did *not* specify it as 8-bits. In fact it was IBM that standardized
on 8-bits, *after* the term was already in use. Sheesh!

Okay you win, Im sorry to upset you so much, if you want to say a 6 bit
byte is a byte... no, I wont do it, youre wrong, I cant even pretend to
concede, its an 8 bit byte

You can continue life being ignorant or you can learn. Your choice.

Do you use 2629 code? Hollerith punched cards? if not, why not? I
want, no I demand all computers today be equipped with a Hollerith
punched card reader that uses 2629 code.

Well if you knew binary over 100 years ago, you should then of course
know about the Hollerith punched card and what 2629 is.

I know what an 026 is, and an 029. I used them in college, and a couple
of times since. 2629 to me is the model number of my laptop (ThinkPad
A21p).

I like punched card equipment, it was fun to work on with the mechanical
stuff and electrical also.

My guess is that you're not talking about a ThinkPad.

Stupid is as stupid types.

Anyone else reading along will see that you're hopeless and won't go
down the quagmire you call a road. I feel sorry for anyone who has to
pick up your messes.

Well people do say everyone has to work harder when Im around

To clean up your messes, no doubt.

BTW, a decent newsreader would be a good "investment".

--
Keith

 

[keith]

On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 11:47:44 -0600, TCS wrote:

On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 12:02:19 -0500, keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:

My preferred criteria is : Is there a micro-program counter?

Ah, so what about a processor that has no program counter? Is that not a
processor? Can it not be programmed? Does it not have programs?

PC != MPC

Sure, but if a processor can exist without a program counter a
micro-programmed machine can exist without a micro-program counter. A
counter is a means to an end. It's not an end.

--
Keith

 

[MikeMandaville]

Ken Smith <wrote

At this point if Bradly1234 said the sky was blue, I'd look ­for
myself.

I recall from the movie about Alexander Graham Bell that when Watson
plucked what can be thought of as an accordion reed over what can be
thought of as an electric guitar pickup, Bell remarked that they were
the first people in history to send a musical note over a wire. Watson
replied that this was nonsense, since Bell had only heard what every
electrician had heard at one time or another during the natural course
of his work. The difference, of course, is that Bell had understood
the significance of the event.

 

[John Larkin]

On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 14:18:42 GMT, Thaas <mysig@sprynet.com> wrote:

In the 1970s minicomputers had what are now retroactively defined as
"complex" instructions to perform operations like say allocating a
free page of physical memory to a program's virtual address space. In
the Modcomp IV this was the AMEM instruction. Two other "complex"
instructions in that machine were the MMRB (Move Memory to Register
Block) and MRBM (Move Register Block to Memory).

The VAX had POLY: evaluate a polynomial. Most of the transcendental
math functions were microcoded, too.

John