Xref: utzoo comp.sys.amiga.advocacy:3048 comp.sys.amiga.programmer:3569
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!decwrl!stanford.edu!neon.Stanford.EDU!torrie
From: torrie@cs.stanford.edu (Evan Torrie)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy,comp.sys.amiga.programmer
Subject: Re: 88000 in the Amiga (Re: An interesting idea...)
Message-ID: <1991May14.145528.23369@neon.Stanford.EDU>
Date: 14 May 91 14:55:28 GMT
References: <1991May14.130905.9577@sugar.hackercorp.com>
Sender: torrie@neon.Stanford.EDU (Evan James Torrie)
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University, Ca , USA
Lines: 23

peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) writes:

>I've been thinking about how you would use something like an 88000 in an Amiga.
>It'd make a killer coprocessor at first. Run the Exec on the 88000 as well as
>the 68000, so that C programs could be compiled for the 88000 and still work.
>The only really hairy parts would be Forbid() and Disable()... the synch
>primitives. I think that at first these primitives will have to stall both
>CPUs, or it'd be too hard to port stuff to the 88000 side.

>Make it an 88000 and you don't have to worry about endianism. What about
>alignment... what's the 88000's alignment requirements.

  From the 88100 User's Manual:

"All instructions and data words are aligned on word (modulo 4)
address boundaries, precluding the need for the two lowest order
address lines and misaligned accesses"

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Evan Torrie.  Stanford University, Class of 199?       torrie@cs.stanford.edu   
"Lay me place and bake me pie, I'm starving for me gravy... Leave my shoes
and door unlocked, I might just slip away - hey - just for the day."