This must be something different from what we had at the beginning, as the
constraints were for production processors commercially available in
1982-1983 and in either the Z-80 or 6502 architecture families.
The reason for this is obvious. It has got to be possible to run the code
in a real device in the "here and now" timeframe. Otherwise one could
simply say well, "I wrote this code for the XYZ at 24.576 GHz and the whole
program requires only one instruction." Further constraint should be that
the author must own a running system capable of running the subject software
on it in the native processor. This system must consist of components
commercially available during or before the subject time period, i.e. 1983.
Thirdly, it should be proven by replication (successful execution of the
submitted code set on another computer not necessarily owned by the author
of the submitted software) that this fete is achievable with the code set
submitted. A simulator or even some fancier assemblers can be used to
indicate the execution time.
It's not desirable to include processors which don't exist yet in any
comparison purported to be a timing comparison between Z-80 and 6502. That
doesn't mean you can't look at whatever else someone might submit for
general inspection and interest, but we do want to have a well-defined goal.
-----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 5:27 PM
Subject: Re: z80 timing... 6502 timing
>On Sat, 17 Apr 1999, Tony Duell wrote:
>
>> > Contest open for any CPU anyone would care to write code for.
>>
>> Including one that I've designed? In which case, how general-purpose does
>> it have to be? I have half an idea to make a state machine that does
>> binary -> roman conversions, but not anything else. I suspect I could get
>> it rather fast, though.
>
>Sure, why not! That would be great.
>
>> (Yes, that's cheating. I know it's cheating. But it's not specifically
>> disallowed by the above).
>
>I don't think anyone should have to be handicapped. Of course, you'll
>have to demonstrate that it actually work, although I have no doubt you
>can and will :)
>
>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 - 19:42:40 BST