Maybe we're talking about two different things, Sam. I thought we were
going to put forth a specification for participants to code for whichever
processor they wanted or both, just to see which one came out fastest,
smallest, or whatever...est.
You were the one who mentioned the graphics so one could see what was going
on. What I had in mind was a computation, e.g "compute the product of three
M x N x L matrices, where M, N, and L are <127, containing prime decimal
numbers of not more than 511 and not fewer than 256 digits each".
An environment has to be selected for a task like this. You know what I
mean. There has got to be some limit on how much a process is helped or
hindered by the environment.
Dick
-----Original Message-----
From: Sellam Ismail <dastar_at_ncal.verio.com>
To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers
<classiccmp_at_u.washington.edu>
Date: Saturday, April 17, 1999 4:15 PM
Subject: Re: z80 timing... 6502 timing
>On Sat, 17 Apr 1999, Richard Erlacher wrote:
>
>> Let's not start throwing up our respective hands in disgust! Nothing's
been
>> attempted yet. In fact, nothing's been suggested yet except a couple of
>> things which at first inspection didn't seem like they'd work. Now, Hans
>> Franke suggested something like a KIM-1. There's no reason one couldn't
>> code for something LIKE a KIM-1, even the guys working the Z-80 side, but
>
>You want people to have to learn 6502 in order to participate in this?
>So, I've never touched a Z80, but conversely you'd want me to have the
>added burden of having to learn Z80 assembler if we chose to do this on
>the Z80?
>
>I think part of the idea is to implement this exercise on different
>processors so that we can all collectively learn how the code to perform
>the same algorithm works on the many different varieties.
>
>> it's inappropriate to choose. If one wants the hardware, it should be
the
>> SAME hardware throughout the exercise, though. That's why I was
suggesting
>> a simulator. All that's really needed is a run to see if it actually
will
>
>Ok, Richard. You go off and write this simulator, and design the board to
>run it. Then when you're all done with this masterpiece, the rest of us
>will have long been done with this little mental challenge and talking
>about something more contemporary, like how two years prior the world
>did not in fact end on the January 1, 2000.
>
>> execute and end up with the desired result when code is submitted to the
>> hardware. A simulator would be adequate so long as it was trusted to
give
>> honest timing results. That way, nobody would have to risk burning his
>> fingers.
>
>I think counting clock cycles would be a lot simpler, but that's just me,
>always trying to find the sensible solution.
>
>Sellam Alternate e-mail:
dastar_at_siconic.com
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
>Don't rub the lamp if you don't want the genie to come out.
>
> Coming this October 2-3: Vintage Computer Festival 3.0!
> See http://www.vintage.org/vcf for details!
> [Last web site update: 04/03/99]
>
Received on Sat Apr 17 1999 - 17:23:16 BST