Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Author Topic: What's so bad about Intel 8086 in technical terms?  (Read 8485 times)

Description:

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline freqmaxTopic starter

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Mar 2006
  • Posts: 2179
    • Show all replies
Re: What's so bad about Intel 8086 in technical terms?
« Reply #14 from previous page: June 17, 2014, 08:58:50 PM »
The 4.4BSD-Lite2.tar.gz source archive is 44.23 MB. I suspect one might run out of flash memory..

Perhaps 2.11BSD is small enough.

If the C64 can run Unix. Then surely an ARM cpu can too. But one might have to strip out a lot. The practical way is to use adress relocation table and trust programs to behave. And ofourse (ab)use the clock timers to create pre-emptive task scheduling.
 

Offline freqmaxTopic starter

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Mar 2006
  • Posts: 2179
    • Show all replies
Re: What's so bad about Intel 8086 in technical terms?
« Reply #15 on: June 18, 2014, 05:48:39 AM »
What would you classify ARM Cortex-M and ARM Cortex-A as?
(presumably v7 and higher)
 

Offline freqmaxTopic starter

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Mar 2006
  • Posts: 2179
    • Show all replies
Re: What's so bad about Intel 8086 in technical terms?
« Reply #16 on: June 18, 2014, 05:30:33 PM »
Much software can work with 32-bit space. So 64-bit environments may be stuck in some ways with more bits than really needed. Which will bloat code.
 

Offline freqmaxTopic starter

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Mar 2006
  • Posts: 2179
    • Show all replies
Re: What's so bad about Intel 8086 in technical terms?
« Reply #17 on: June 19, 2014, 12:40:55 AM »
What embedded CPU choice is a good one these days? There are a few 32-bit designs.. AVR, C28x, ColdFire, CPU32, ETRAX, PowerPC 603e, PowerPC e200, PowerPC e300, M-CORE, MIPS32 M4K, MIPS32 microAptiv MPU, MPC500, PIC, RISC, TLCS-900, TMS320C28x, TriCore, TX19A, etc. And the only VLIW seen in the flesh seems to be the products of Transmeta for an unattractive price. ARM Cortex-M and to some extent the more demanding counterpart ARM Cortex-A with DMA and external memory seems to take over ever more market sections like an viral octopussy. It's in your phone, hdd, photoframe, DSL, printer, switch etc. So it seems to pay to get to know ARM architecture even thoe they enforce their patents a bit too much for my taste. Like on HDL-code to create an ARM processor in FPGA.

I find it fascinating that these single chips have more power than some Amiga machines. They lack the memory on-chip and the graphics accelerator. But in terms of crunch performance they most likely run circles around many Amiga machines.
 

Offline freqmaxTopic starter

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Mar 2006
  • Posts: 2179
    • Show all replies
Re: What's so bad about Intel 8086 in technical terms?
« Reply #18 on: June 19, 2014, 02:41:00 AM »
Nothing one wants to code C on?
 

Offline freqmaxTopic starter

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Mar 2006
  • Posts: 2179
    • Show all replies
Re: What's so bad about Intel 8086 in technical terms?
« Reply #19 on: June 19, 2014, 03:05:39 PM »
Loading those micro-ops from an internal table instead of RAM will most likely be faster too. One CISC op-code to generate several micro-ops internally certainly helps that memory bottleneck.
 

Offline freqmaxTopic starter

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Mar 2006
  • Posts: 2179
    • Show all replies
Re: What's so bad about Intel 8086 in technical terms?
« Reply #20 on: June 20, 2014, 03:50:22 PM »
@biggun, "But I work as CPU designer for a living." What kind of CPU do you design? I thought that was something only very few companies did..