Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!bloom-beacon!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mailrus!nrl-cmf!cmcl2!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!porthos.rutgers.edu!webber From: webber@porthos.rutgers.edu (Bob Webber) Newsgroups: comp.arch Subject: Re: Today's dumb question... Message-ID: Date: 31 Mar 88 09:58:36 GMT References: <503@xios.XIOS.UUCP> <47649@sun.uucp> Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J. Lines: 21 Keywords: SPARC, test_and_set, Am29000, floating-point In article <47649@sun.uucp>, garner@gaas.Sun.COM (Robert Garner) writes: > ... > On yet another subject, am I still correct in believing that AMD's > Am29C327 floating-point coprocessor does NOT directly execute How does the 327 differ from the Am29027? The floating-point instructions trapping on the Am29000 looked a bit odd to me. Is the notion that it is important to standardize the interface to floating-point stuff so that people can buy floating-point chips later and not have to recompile? Or is it that one would want to ``hardwire'' the coprocessor interactions that are currently being done at trap when the chip space becomes available? --- BOB (webber@athos.rutgers.edu ; rutgers!athos.rutgers.edu!webber) [By the way, I have been pondering the SPARC and Am29000 chips for a while now trying to figure out if it is plausible to build a simple home computer around them. If any one has references that talk about the sort of glue that holds together a board with such a processor, 1 or 2 SCSI ports, 1 or 2 serial ports, and some static ram, I would certainly be interested.]