Netiquette?

From: Master of all that Sucks <vance_at_ikickass.org>
Date: Sun Aug 19 12:45:39 2001

Look below at your responses. They're inline. Plus you were *very* rude
in your suggestion that I avoid the *exact* same method of quoting that
you are using below. Netiquette? Go learn some etiquette first.

Peace... Sridhar

On 19 Aug 2001, Iggy Drougge wrote:

> Tony Duell skrev:
>
> >> All right, I've really never looked into an architecture without an
> >> accumulator.
>
> >There aren't many microprocessors without an accumulator. But things like
> >the PDP11 don't have one. I can add R1 to R3, or one memory location to
> >another, or... No restriction on one of the operands being in a special
> >registers.
>
> I take it you're no big fan of load/store designs?
>
> >> >I am not going to name any particular chips, but I think that should
> >> >explain why I prevfer the 6809 to the 6502, for example.
> >>
> >> Because it's got more registers?
> >> I think the 6809 (at a glance) seems to have a lot more special cases and
>
> >Eh? Yes, there are some special-cases on the 6809 (MUL, for example). But
> >the 6502 has many more. Heck, on the 6502 you have to use the X register
> >for one kind of indrect and indexed addressing and the Y register for the
> >other form (on the 6809 you can do any addressing mode with X or Y (or
> >with U or S for that matter). On the 6809 you can transfer values between
> >any 2 registers of the same size. On the 6502 you can't even transfer
> >between X and Y without destroying the accumulator contents (IIRC).
>
> I was specifically thinking of all the different registers and the way you
> combine them. But I've not got enough experience to make any insightful
> comparisons.
>
> --
> En ligne avec Thor 2.6a.
>
> "If Linux were a beer, it would be shipped in open barrels so that anybody
> could piss in it before delivery."
> -- Unknown
>
Received on Sun Aug 19 2001 - 12:45:39 BST