Hi Tim, "Parity" makes the most sense. I was wondering if there is already a more specific term for such a scheme.
Thanks, Leo On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 4:35 AM, Shoppa, Tim <tsho...@wmata.com> wrote: > Rather than "convolution", maybe "parity", "check", "hash", or > "fingerprint"? Like "command parity" and"number parity" plus two "invalid > parities"? > > Many buses have multiple parity bits already (e.g. "address parity" and > "instruction parity" or "upper parity" and "lower parity"). > > Tim. > > Sent from my PDP-8/E > ------------------------------ > From: Leo Broukhis <l...@mailcom.com> > Sent: 2/9/2015 3:33 PM > To: simh@trailing-edge.com > Subject: [Simh] A terminology question > > Dear colleagues, > > There is an implementation detail in the BESM-6 architecture the name of > which we've struggled to translate adequately. There is a feature > preventing execution of arbitrary data as instructions implemented using > two parity bits per word, for the upper and the lower half-word. The > overall parity must be odd, and one of the valid parity bit configurations > denotes an instruction, and the other denotes data. In the original > documentation this mechanism was called > https://translate.google.com/#ru/en/%D1%81%D0%B2%D0%B5%D1%80%D1%82%D0%BA%D0%B0 > (the two forms were called literally "command convolution" and "number > convolution"). > > Unlike a tagged architecture, there isn't a fixed tag value to indicate > instructions or data. > > Is there a standard term for this? "Convolution" sounds too mathematical. > > Thanks, > Leo > >
_______________________________________________ Simh mailing list Simh@trailing-edge.com http://mailman.trailing-edge.com/mailman/listinfo/simh
