Jump to content

Talk:List of instruction sets

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

SuperH 64 Architecture

[edit]

Abbreviated SH64, this link redirects to a list of highways. Does a page exist for this architecture? --Dpaulat (talk) 03:39, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, it doesn't. Unless it's radically different (in ways other than being 64-bit) from 32-bit SuperH, it probably just belongs in an "SH-5" section of SuperH. Guy Harris (talk) 05:08, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Probably this discussion is correct. So, I merged it into SH-5, and added another citation. In addition, an old citation link for SH-5, which may have security risk (McAfee insists so), is replaced to another one after confirming that the compiled date is identical. This document was made by "SuperH, Inc.", which is almost identical to the original "SH64" link insists. Cafeduke (talk) 08:47, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Improvements:

[edit]

1. Get rid of "Other" and include those in the alphabetical list.
2. Include life dates with the company names, open ended if the company still sells processors using any of the listed instructions.
3. Include "acquired" references at the begining, and "continued as" references at the end of a company's list, with only instruction sets used by the named company's products listed under that company. If a company did not rename parts or issue documentation under their own name, then a simple "see" reference will do.209.86.76.28 (talk) 21:54, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As for #1, it is fixed now. Cafeduke (talk) 08:50, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of instruction sets. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:01, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on List of instruction sets. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:59, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Some work; I found replacements for others. Guy Harris (talk) 07:19, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wither Honeywell?

[edit]

Long before Honeywell acquired computers from GE it had computers of its own, including the Honeywell 800, the 200 and 2200 and the DDP 316 and 516 computers used for the IMP and CHIMP on ARPAnet. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 16:23, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It should probably get its own list, separate from the GE list. Perhaps the Honeywell 6000 series and its later names should go there, with a note that Honeywell acquired that series from GE. Guy Harris (talk) 17:49, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Now, it is done. A new section, for H800, H200, and DDP 316, is created with their programmers' reference manual. Cafeduke (talk) 09:53, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

POWER and PowerPC

[edit]

I think these two are different instruction set architecture as is described in "the another article's drawing of this wikipedia", though I had not checked the contents of the added manuals yet. So, my last addition of reference from IBM refers to POWER architecture. The last link will jump to "IBM's site (a pop-up will appear)", and shows the following manuals.

  • POWER ISA v2.07B (for POWER8 & POWER8 with NVIDIA NVlink)
  • POWER ISA v3.0B (for POWER9)

Cafeduke (talk) 07:21, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I did not make direct link for the PDF is that it would be updated in the future. Cafeduke (talk) 07:24, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Or, we can divide POWER ISA into several versions, like ARM, MIPS, and SPARK. It may be smarter, probably. Cafeduke (talk) 07:29, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I found that POWER3 or later products are compliant with Power ISA Book I, which is also applied to PowerPC. Cafeduke (talk) 08:34, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Now, the list is categorized by specification Book based. I think, this problem is solved. Cafeduke (talk) 12:58, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The all-caps POWER ISA is as described in IBM POWER instruction set architecture. It is the instruction set implemented by the original POWER1 processor in the first IBM RS/6000s. It has, for example, multiply and divide instructions that use an MQ register.
The PowerPC ISA is based on that ISA, but it adds some things, such as multiply and divide instructions that use general-purpose registers, and subtracts some things, such as the MQ register and the instructions that use it. See "Appendix E. Incompatibilities with the POWER Architecture" of PowerPC Architecture Book, Version 2.02, Book I: PowerPC User Instruction Set Architecture. The first PowerPC processor, the PowerPC 601, was based on a POWER processor, the RISC Single Chip, and implemented "all compiler-generated user-level POWER instructions" and "all but a few of the 32-bit PowerPC instructions", as per this IBM document. There's a common subset of POWER and PowerPC; code using only instructions in that subset can run on POWER ISA and PowerPC processors.
The not-all-caps Power ISA "represents a reunification of the architecture, combining Book E content with the more general purpose PowerPC Version 2.02", to quote the Power ISA Version 2.03 manual:
The roots of the Power ISA (Instruction Set Architecture) extend back over a quarter of a century, to IBM Research. The POWER (Performance Optimization With Enhanced RISC) Architecture was introduced with the RISC System/6000 product family in early 1990. In 1991, Apple, IBM, and Motorola began the collaboration to evolve to the PowerPC Architecture, expanding the architecture’s applicability. In 1997, Motorola and IBM began another collaboration, focused on optimizing PowerPC for embedded systems, which produced Book E.
Power ISA Version 2.03 represents a reunification of the architecture, combining Book E content with the more general purpose PowerPC Version 2.02. A significant benefit of the reunification is the establishment of a single, compatible, 64-bit programming model. The combining also extends explicit architectural endorsement and control to Auxiliary Processing Units (APUs), units of function that were originally developed as implementation- or product family-specific extensions in the context of the Book E allocated opcode space. With the resulting architectural superset comes a framework that clearly establishes requirements and identifies options.
Nobody has made "POWER ISA" processors in years; the last "POWER ISA" processor was the POWER2 processor. The POWER3 processor implemented the PowerPC ISA. The current POWER processors are "Power ISA" processors. Guy Harris (talk) 19:20, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Topic order when companies are renamed should be reversed

[edit]

For Example: Altera (later, Intel) should become Intel (former, Altera).

This makes more sense when searching for a company in contents as the current name is more likely known. xedrey 17:09, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't this be a table?

[edit]

This should be a table, not 255 different paragraphs. --Wtshymanski (talk) 03:46, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This should be something other than a simple list with little if any context information. Guy Harris (talk) 04:46, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia: the encyclopedia any one can edit. WP:SOFIXIT rather than complain about it guys. 86.149.137.167 (talk) 08:49, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia. the encyclopedia where sacred consensus replaces real knowledge or ability. We don't do any changes out here without getting our claque behind us. I like the deletion idea, myself - an article that is deleted is no more trouble at all. --Wtshymanski (talk) 00:39, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If somebody suggests deleting it, I wouldn't object to the suggestion. Guy Harris (talk) 02:11, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've grown back most of the hair and skin burnt off in my last nomination for deletion, let's see what the sacred consensus dictates. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_instruction_sets --Wtshymanski (talk) 04:40, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not even worth replying to that garbage. 86.149.137.167 (talk) 13:30, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_instruction_sets&oldid=1199579974"