Re: Machine language and assembler translators?

glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu>
28 Jul 2005 02:38:07 -0400

          From comp.compilers

Related articles
[10 earlier articles]
Re: Machine language and assembler translators? peter.jinks@manchester.ac.uk (Pete Jinks) (2005-07-22)
Re: Machine language and assembler translators? gah@ugcs.caltech.edu (glen herrmannsfeldt) (2005-07-26)
Re: Machine language and assembler translators? Martin.Ward@durham.ac.uk (Martin Ward) (2005-07-26)
Re: Machine language and assembler translators? haberg@math.su.se (2005-07-28)
Re: Machine language and assembler translators? jjk@acm.org (Jens Kilian) (2005-07-28)
Re: Machine language and assembler translators? pohjalai@cc.helsinki.fi (A Pietu Pohjalainen) (2005-07-28)
Re: Machine language and assembler translators? gah@ugcs.caltech.edu (glen herrmannsfeldt) (2005-07-28)
| List of all articles for this month |

From: glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu>
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: 28 Jul 2005 02:38:07 -0400
Organization: Compilers Central
References: 05-06-103 05-07-076 05-07-084 05-07-096
Keywords: architecture

Martin Ward wrote:
> On Saturday 23 Jul 2005 01:17, you wrote:


>>Features of the pentium 4 can be traced back to the 8080, 30 years ago.


> How similar are the 8080 and the 4040 (and its 4 bit predecessor, the 4004)?
> Did any 4004 features survive to the pentium 4?
> I believe the 4004 was the first ever microprocessor.


Well, the 4004 was designed for building calculators, one reason
for its four bit width.


There was a specific design goal in keeping the 8086 assembly source
compatible with the 8080, but I don't believe that was true earlier.


Or course many features, such as the ability to add and subtract are
common between them for obvious reasons.


-- glen


Post a followup to this message

Return to the comp.compilers page.
Search the comp.compilers archives again.