Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!bbn!rochester!rutgers!uwvax!dogie!terranova@vms.macc.wisc.edu From: terranova@vms.macc.wisc.edu (John Terranova) Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple Subject: Re: 65816 v. 680x0 Message-ID: <871@dogie.edu> Date: 14 Nov 88 11:15:09 GMT Sender: news@dogie.edu Distribution: na Organization: University of Wisconsin Academic Computing Center Lines: 32 In article <8878@smoke.BRL.MIL>, gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn ) writes... >The various strange addressing quirks once, for example, limited >APW C arrays to 64Kb in early releases (now arrays are permitted >to exceed 64Kb, at the expense of slower code generated to access >them). The typical continual shuffling of the data bank register >is a far cry from the 68000's simple addressing scheme. And the >crucial role played by the 256-byte direct page in making many >addressing modes work leads to a turf fight that requires a lot >of unnecessary work to avoid. > You are complaining about a 64K limit on arrays and, for that matter, single code segments?!? You should consider yourself fortunate. On a Macintosh (some claim a superior machine to the GS) you are restricted to 32K arrays, 32K code segments and 32K of global data. Sounds to me like the 65816 compares fairly favorably (in this respect, atleast) to the 68000. BTW: I have heard that the 65816 has a very efficient instruction set (highly piplined, perhaps?) and would run rings around a 68000 running at the same clock speed. Can anyone verify or deny this for me? Just wondering. -------------------------+--------------------+---------------------------- John C. Terranova \ What the Hell do | I'm not a Computer CS, BS to be \ I know? I come | Science undergraduate, terranova@vms.macc.wisc.edu \ from Waunakee! | but I play one at school. -----------------------------+----------------+---------------------------- It's awful hard to try to make love long-distance. --Billy Joel, "Just a Fantasy" Robert Heibel: 08/30/41 - 09/21/88; R.I.P., you deserve it.