| Author |
Message |
Ken Smith
Guest
|
 Posted:
Mon Oct 24, 2005 1:54 pm Post subject:
Re: A stupid post about Intel's latest computer chip ( s) |
|
|
In article <1130119928.958404.155180@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
A Man Crying Alone In The Wilderness <cpu16x1832@wmconnect.com> wrote:
[....]
| Quote: | traditional "bandwidth" benchmarking program suites, a 'raw' efficiency
will be displayed, even more so where a benchmark relies upon parallel
architectures, I guess ten to ONE HUNDRED times faster, for some
real-world practical parallel programming benchmark suites. (
hydrodynamic or thermodynamic modeling, etc. )
|
In both seismic data processing and the SETI project, parallel computing
can be done up to the limit of your budget for all practical purposes.
Some years back I was at a trade show and saw a computer with 32K
processors in it.
Cute sales lady: ... and this machine has over 32 thousand processors.
Me: Oh, what kind of processor are they.
CSL : ... um ... um ... little bitty ones
--
--
kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Tim Clacy
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Oct 24, 2005 3:22 pm Post subject:
Re: A stupid post about Intel's latest computer chip ( s) |
|
|
maghas@Ryugyong.Hotel wrote:
| Quote: | cpu16x1832@wmconnect.com> wrote in message
news:1130088424.198227.277960@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Come on now, you are less of an idiot to understand this,
FORTH never went anywhere for a good reason.
Post-script, Lego Mindstorms, Open Firmware... |
| Quote: | Totally un-maintainable.
No need to maintain if it does the job already |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Ghost In The Machine
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Oct 24, 2005 4:15 pm Post subject:
Re: A stupid post about Intel's latest computer chip ( s) |
|
|
In sci.math, Tim Clacy
<nospamtcl@nospamphaseone.nospamdk>
wrote
on Mon, 24 Oct 2005 12:22:42 +0200
<435cb5fb$0$38653$edfadb0f@dread12.news.tele.dk>:
| Quote: | maghas@Ryugyong.Hotel wrote:
cpu16x1832@wmconnect.com> wrote in message
news:1130088424.198227.277960@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Come on now, you are less of an idiot to understand this,
FORTH never went anywhere for a good reason.
Post-script, Lego Mindstorms, Open Firmware...
Totally un-maintainable.
No need to maintain if it does the job already
|
Three words: lots of comments. :-P Besides, Forth is generally
portrayed as a dictionary of source; if one needs to change
a word, it can be changed easily, although one might have
to reload the system for the change to take proper effect.
For example:
: GODOIT 1 . ;
: DOITAGAIN CR GODOIT GODOIT CR ;
: GODOIT 2 . ;
DOITAGAIN
would print '11' or ' 1 1', not '22' or ' 2 2'.
A quick install of 'gforth' confirms this.
http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/projects/forth.html
Comments use '()' or backslash; note that these must be
separated by a space as they are interpreted by the
gforth system:
( this is a comment; it can be multiline but cannot nest )
\ so is this; it extends to the end of the line
(The \ is new to me, but reasonably logical. The () I've seen before.)
A typical definition, for example, notes the stack effects in ():
: square ( n -- n^2 )
dup * ;
And of course it helps to use intuitive tokens as opposed to cryptic
one-character affairs.
--
#191, ewill3@earthlink.net
It's still legal to go .sigless. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Casper H.S. Dik
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Oct 24, 2005 4:15 pm Post subject:
Re: A stupid post about Intel's latest computer chip ( s) |
|
|
"A Man Crying Alone In The Wilderness" <cpu16x1832@wmconnect.com> writes:
| Quote: | maghas@Ryugyong.Hotel wrote:
cpu16x1832@wmconnect.com> wrote in message
news:1130088424.198227.277960@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Come on now, you are less of an idiot to understand this,
FORTH never went anywhere for a good reason.
Totally un-maintainable.
Presumably for the same reason you understand all machine code is
un-maintainable. Maybe read some more to develop you knowledge of
computer programming languages and their relationship to machine code.
|
And a Forth interpreter is shipped embedded in the hardware of all
Macs and Sun SPARCs. And that is a pretty good indication of the
application space.
Casper |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
maghas@Ryugyong.Hotel
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Oct 24, 2005 9:30 pm Post subject:
Re: A stupid post about Intel's latest computer chip ( s) |
|
|
"Casper H.S. Dik" <Casper.Dik@Sun.COM> wrote in message
news:435ce764$0$11069$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl...
| Quote: | "A Man Crying Alone In The Wilderness" <cpu16x1832@wmconnect.com> writes:
maghas@Ryugyong.Hotel wrote:
cpu16x1832@wmconnect.com> wrote in message
news:1130088424.198227.277960@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Come on now, you are less of an idiot to understand this,
FORTH never went anywhere for a good reason.
Totally un-maintainable.
Presumably for the same reason you understand all machine code is
un-maintainable. Maybe read some more to develop you knowledge of
computer programming languages and their relationship to machine code.
And a Forth interpreter is shipped embedded in the hardware of all
Macs and Sun SPARCs. And that is a pretty good indication of the
application space.
|
yep. With NO applications either. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
clvrmnky
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Oct 25, 2005 12:15 am Post subject:
Re: A stupid post about Intel's latest computer chip ( s) |
|
|
On 24/10/2005 9:54 AM, Ken Smith wrote:
| Quote: | In article <1130119928.958404.155180@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
A Man Crying Alone In The Wilderness <cpu16x1832@wmconnect.com> wrote:
[....]
traditional "bandwidth" benchmarking program suites, a 'raw' efficiency
will be displayed, even more so where a benchmark relies upon parallel
architectures, I guess ten to ONE HUNDRED times faster, for some
real-world practical parallel programming benchmark suites. (
hydrodynamic or thermodynamic modeling, etc. )
In both seismic data processing and the SETI project, parallel computing
can be done up to the limit of your budget for all practical purposes.
Some years back I was at a trade show and saw a computer with 32K
processors in it.
Cute sales lady: ... and this machine has over 32 thousand processors.
Me: Oh, what kind of processor are they.
CSL : ... um ... um ... little bitty ones
Best. Booth. Babe. Story. EVAR! |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Oct 25, 2005 12:15 am Post subject:
Re: A stupid post about Intel's latest computer chip ( s) |
|
|
A Man Crying Alone In The Wilderness wrote:
| Quote: | Which one do you believe requires less chip internal hardware wires?
|
The register based machine. The reasons is that registers can be
decoded from a small index (like 4-bits) while a stack has to be
indexed by lots of bits (like address-bits).
| Quote: | I have been shouting news of the VLIW SMP MPP FORTH formula to
Washington and has been published, since 1996, all around the St. Paul
and Minneapolis Minnesota area.
|
And you have sold how many chips in this time ?? versus ~2 Billion from
our side.
| Quote: | However, IBM/Intel continues to shout anti-news.
|
And make vast sums of money...to satisfied customers... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bruce McFarling
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Oct 25, 2005 8:15 am Post subject:
Re: A stupid post about Intel's latest computer chip ( s) |
|
|
MitchAlsup@aol.com wrote:
| Quote: | A Man Crying Alone In The Wilderness wrote:
Which one do you believe requires less chip internal hardware wires?
The register based machine. The reasons is that registers can be
decoded from a small index (like 4-bits) while a stack has to be
indexed by lots of bits (like address-bits).
|
A stack does not have to be indexed in a stack machine processor. The
machine language primitives work directly on the stack. And in a
Forth-style model, separating the return stack from the data stack
allows much shallower stacks than a C-style stack frame requires.
The "reduced hardware" in hardware Forth machines is also due to the
ability to work with a kind of "ultra-RISC" machine, where very few and
very simple primitives are used to support a general purpose high level
language. In one group of hardware Forth chips, instructions are 5 bit
opcodes packed four at a time into a 20 bit word.
One approach to implementing a Forth machine is to use a FPGA, where
the small number of machine instructions required frees up on-chip
resources that can be used to provide internal data and return stacks.
A side effect, though, of a virtual machine model that can be
implemented by hobbyists either in software or in hardware is that
sometimes the experienced professionals are hard to hear over top of
enthusiastic amateurs. I note this as an observation over more than a
decade in which I myself have been naught but an enthusiastic amateur. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
glen herrmannsfeldt
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Oct 25, 2005 8:15 am Post subject:
Re: A stupid post about Intel's latest computer chip ( s) |
|
|
Bruce McFarling wrote:
(snip)
| Quote: | A stack does not have to be indexed in a stack machine processor. The
machine language primitives work directly on the stack. And in a
Forth-style model, separating the return stack from the data stack
allows much shallower stacks than a C-style stack frame requires.
|
Does C require a combine stack? It is a common implementation, but
I don't believe it is required.
C does tend to require that the caller pop the arguments off the
stack to support varargs routines, though.
-- glen |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Frithiof Andreas Jensen
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Oct 25, 2005 2:38 pm Post subject:
Re: A stupid post about Intel's latest computer chip ( s) |
|
|
"A Man Crying Alone In The Wilderness" <cpu16x1832@wmconnect.com> wrote in
message news:1130080284.332527.14090@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| Quote: | Which one do you believe requires less chip internal hardware wires?
( and, thus, a higher efficiency of "Turing" machine language
expression ( and code profile))
|
Why would I - or anyone else - even care when the Important Question is:
"Does Half Life run on it"?? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bruce McFarling
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Oct 25, 2005 4:15 pm Post subject:
Re: A stupid post about Intel's latest computer chip ( s) |
|
|
glen herrmannsfeldt wrote:
| Quote: | Bruce McFarling wrote:
A stack does not have to be indexed in a stack machine processor. The
machine language primitives work directly on the stack. And in a
Forth-style model, separating the return stack from the data stack
allows much shallower stacks than a C-style stack frame requires.
Does C require a combine stack? It is a common implementation, but
I don't believe it is required.
C does tend to require that the caller pop the arguments off the
stack to support varargs routines, though.
|
You'll notice that I was too canny to step into that one. I did not say
"a stack frame, as required by C", but "a C-style stack frame". I am
not even going to speculate what would be involved in a C-compiler that
was based on a split stack virtual machine and took advantage of that
to reduce total stack space requirements.
Not that I'm complaining about the C-style stack frame. I reckon that's
the data structure that is responsible for the ,S address modes in the
65816, which is part of what makes it so much better as a Forth
microcontroller core than the old 65C02 ever was. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Oct 25, 2005 4:15 pm Post subject:
Re: A stupid post about Intel's latest computer chip ( s) |
|
|
| Quote: | The "reduced hardware" in hardware Forth machines is also due to the
ability to work with a kind of "ultra-RISC" machine, where very few and
very simple primitives are used to support a general purpose high level
language. In one group of hardware Forth chips, instructions are 5 bit
opcodes packed four at a time into a 20 bit word.
|
I remembered that many years ago, a british company, may be called
"Sinclair", announce a breakthrough in chip design, I think it is also
RISC-based.
But we all know, what wins in the martket place usually tends to be the
one with best marekting, not the one with best technology, for example,
Microsoft Windows ...
David
=====================================
http://KickJava.com - Java Examples, Source Codes, Free Online Books,
News and Articles |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bruce McFarling
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Oct 25, 2005 4:15 pm Post subject:
Re: A stupid post about Intel's latest computer chip ( s) |
|
|
JavaByExample_at_KickJava_com@yahoo.com wrote:
| Quote: | The "reduced hardware" in hardware Forth machines is also due to the
ability to work with a kind of "ultra-RISC" machine, where very few and
very simple primitives are used to support a general purpose high level
language. In one group of hardware Forth chips, instructions are 5 bit
opcodes packed four at a time into a 20 bit word.
I remembered that many years ago, a british company, may be called
"Sinclair", announce a breakthrough in chip design, I think it is also
RISC-based.
But we all know, what wins in the martket place usually tends to be the
one with best marekting, not the one with best technology, for example,
Microsoft Windows ...
|
It depends on the market. In a fast growth mass market, that's
normally true.
But if the machine is implemented on an FPGA, then you get the
manufacturing economies of scale courtesy of Xilinx or one of their
peers, and its easier to scale down into a small niche. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Frithiof Andreas Jensen
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Oct 25, 2005 4:15 pm Post subject:
Re: A stupid post about Intel's latest computer chip ( s) |
|
|
"Bruce McFarling" <agila61@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:1130240959.459045.260080@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
| Quote: | But if the machine is implemented on an FPGA, then you get the
manufacturing economies of scale courtesy of Xilinx or one of their
peers, and its easier to scale down into a small niche.
|
Hrmph:
A long undisclosable history of disasters with implementing real stuff in
FPGA's, ASIC's and various dedicated CPU's tend to "prove" the opposite:
There *is* no economy to be had - the tools are
bleeding-edge-to-the-point-of-being-useless - and by the time it finally
"works", the "product" is either abandoned or at least carries a "Last Buy"
toxic sticker. Sorry.
The sales people will of course hate those projects too, because of the
perpetual brokenness of the alledged product they cannot not show any early
demos to customers and rack up airmiles, so a lynch mob will gather to kill
the runt should it ever actually emerge.
In my experience, plain, stupid and wasteful COTS hardware and tools will
beat the custom devices in delivering actual product *80 times out of 100*.
And, IMO, The Real Reason(tm) for taking the FPGA/ASIC route is that
<Powerful PHB> just happen to have a lot of idle hardware design "talent"
and said PHB do not want to shrink the empire (but rather prefer to shrink
the entire next years budget with the inevitable writeoff).
PS:
During all this time the previously rejected COTS CPU solution has of course
doubled in speed and halved it's price to well below whatever the FPGA/ASIC
"solution" was touted to cost ....
PS2:
After about two years the memory of pain and disaster has faded sufficiently
and the cycle repeats itself. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
David Hopwood
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Oct 25, 2005 4:15 pm Post subject:
Re: A stupid post about Intel's latest computer chip ( s) |
|
|
[newsgroups trimmed]
glen herrmannsfeldt wrote:
| Quote: | Bruce McFarling wrote:
(snip)
A stack does not have to be indexed in a stack machine processor. The
machine language primitives work directly on the stack. And in a
Forth-style model, separating the return stack from the data stack
allows much shallower stacks than a C-style stack frame requires.
Does C require a combine stack? It is a common implementation, but
I don't believe it is required.
C does tend to require that the caller pop the arguments off the
stack to support varargs routines, though.
|
Varargs calls can use a different (less efficient) calling convention.
--
David Hopwood <david.nospam.hopwood@blueyonder.co.uk> |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in