Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!rutgers!ames!oliveb!pyramid!voder!mas1!shiv From: shiv@mas1.UUCP (Shiv Haris) Newsgroups: comp.sys.nsc.32k Subject: Re: NS32000 Processor Message-ID: <542@mas1.UUCP> Date: Sat, 13-Jun-87 04:02:06 EDT Article-I.D.: mas1.542 Posted: Sat Jun 13 04:02:06 1987 Date-Received: Sat, 20-Jun-87 19:53:32 EDT References: <266@udcps1.UUCP> <642@umnd-cs.D.UMN.EDU> <6779@g.ms.uky.csnet> <645@umnd-cs.D.UMN.EDU> Reply-To: shiv@mas1.UUCP (Shiv Haris) Organization: Measurex Automation Systems, Cupertino, CA Lines: 37 Keywords: NS32000 Processor I have done quite some assembly level programming on the 32000 and found it very simple. The specific project I worked on was porting VRTX kernel to the 32000. We adopted it from the 68000 version of VRTX. It was much easier to handle registers in a symetrical architecture. Thanks to the extra bit in the PSR for independence of user/supervisior mode and user/system stack we could do with just one kernel stack. Code compactness is also important when speed is important. And of course 32000 wins. Speed and compactness in such an envirionment is priority one. The only problem that National Semi has is not being lucky enough to get the blessings of the Big Brother (IBM). Other than that National came to the scene of 32 bit chips long ago. It had no hangups of upward compatibilty and designed a decent chip. I hate to see perfection being lost to upward compatibilty. Whoever said MS-DOS was a good operating system. But gained popularity because of IBM. There were other OS's good for the 8086 but were not popular. - Shiv Haris (ex-National Semi engineer who ported a 68000 VRTX realtime system to 32000 and now working with the 80386 and yet to find a more decent microprocessor than 32000) Most of you deal with higher level languages and don't see the architecture at all. You have the right to your point of view. Perfection Timing and Popularity may not always be in Sync. All flames welR sdon