Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site bragvax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!houxm!houxz!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!hplabs!bragvax!david
From: david@bragvax.UUCP (David DiGiacomo)
Newsgroups: net.micro.68k,net.micro.16k
Subject: Re: 68020 production samples announced
Message-ID: <153@bragvax.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 18-Jul-84 19:11:34 EDT
Article-I.D.: bragvax.153
Posted: Wed Jul 18 19:11:34 1984
Date-Received: Fri, 20-Jul-84 03:30:40 EDT
References: <579@islenet.UUCP>, <120@dice.UUCP>, <1543@sun.uucp> <4089@utzoo.UUCP> <337@intelca.UUCP>
Organization: Brag Systems Inc., San Mateo, CA
Lines: 23

>>>  ... as well as a truly general coprocessor interface, unlike the
>>>   warts put out by Intel and National that hook up their float chip
>>>   and nothing else....

>>I do SO love it when people spout off about things they seem to know little
>>about.  I do suppose, however, that all of this really matters in how you
>>define "coprocessor."  WRT the 8086, I'm kinda at a loss how it could
>>be made much more general ...

Ken, I love it when you spout off about things you know TOO much about!
In this case, you seem to be reacting to the keyword "general", which
should probably be read as "useful".  The 8086/8087 interface is a wart
because:
	1) It is not documented well enough to allow construction of
	additional coprocessors by third parties.

	2) Even if it was documented, it is not suited to MSI
	coprocessor implementation, due to its complexity and critical
	timing.

Anyway, how do YOU define "coprocessor"?  At Intel 3 (8089, 82586,
82730) out of 5 (+ 8087, 80287) "coprocessors" are what I would call
"channels", since they don't share the instruction stream of the CPU.