From: | andy@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) |
Newsgroups: | comp.compilers,comp.arch |
Date: | 18 Apr 1996 00:35:51 -0400 |
Organization: | Computer Science Department, Stanford University. |
References: | 96-04-059 96-04-083 96-04-094 |
Keywords: | architecture |
Preston Briggs <preston@tera.com> wrote:
>And that's the whole deal. With instruction caches, you can make the
>hardwired instruction cycle as fast as microcode. There's no reason
>to have a separate level of instruction interpretation.
That assumes that the only purpose of microcode is sequencing and
composition. While sequencing is the mechanism, is it really the only
worthwhile purpose? (Given the PALcode example, protected sequencing
isn't a microcode exclusive.) I can't think of others, but ....
-andy
--
Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.