On Fri, 22 Aug 2008 23:23:57 +0000 (UTC), Martin Gregorie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Fri, 22 Aug 2008 22:56:09 +0000, sln wrote: > >> On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 09:11:48 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rob Warnock) wrote: >> >>>[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>*IS* raw machine code, *NOT* assembler!! >> [snip] >> >> I don't see the distinction. >> Just dissasemble it and find out. >> >There's a 1:1 relationship between machine code and assembler. >Unless its a macro-assembler, of course! > >> >> Each op is a routine in microcode. >> That is machine code. Those op routines use machine cycles. >> >Not necessarily. An awful lot of CPU cycles were used before microcode >was introduced. Mainframes and minis designed before about 1970 didn't >use or need it and I'm pretty sure that there was no microcode in the >original 8/16 bit microprocessors either (6800, 6809, 6502, 8080, 8086, >Z80 and friends). > >The number of clock cycles per instruction isn't a guide either. The only >processors I know that got close to 1 cycle/instruction were all RISC, >all used large lumps of microcode and were heavily pipelined. > >By contrast the ICL 1900 series (3rd generation mainframe, no microcode, >no pipeline, 24 bit word) averaged 3 clock cycles per instruction. >Motorola 6800 and 6809 (no microcode or pipelines either, 1 byte fetch) >average 4 - 5 cycles/instruction. Surely you have caved to intelligence. And there is nothing beyond op. What has the friggin world come to!!! sln -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list