Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!apple!bloom-beacon!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!unmvax!deimos.cis.ksu.edu!uxc!uxc.cso.uiuc.edu!mcdurb!mbellon From: mbellon@mcdurb.Urbana.Gould.COM Newsgroups: comp.sys.m68k Subject: Re: 88k Message-ID: <27100004@mcdurb> Date: 25 May 89 20:59:00 GMT References: <16124@gryphon.COM> Lines: 37 Nf-ID: #R:gryphon.COM:16124:mcdurb:27100004:000:1408 Nf-From: mcdurb.Urbana.Gould.COM!mbellon May 25 15:59:00 1989 Since there is no 88000 SIG here: How is the 88000 instruction set? Can anyone give me any specs on it? And finally -->is it anythingl ike the 68000 in terms of programming -- can it be done in assembler even though it is a RISC design? -=SP=- (thanks!) UUCP: {ames!elroy, }!gryphon!pnet02!shaulp INET: shaulp@pnet02.cts.com The instruction set in very different from the 68k. Yes, you can handle assembly code for it. Its not that bad. The delayed branchs are a little tough to use effiently and optimal code sequences are harder to write than on the 68k. Kernel handling of page faults, traps, and such it TOTALLY different (RISCY, e.g. you do everthing yourself no nifty kernel mode instruction). There are only a few address modes, and the FPU is built in (no trancendentals). It is capable of high performance multiprocessing due to the hardware architecture (the 68k is not very good here). The CMMU chips make this wonderfull. The coprocessor interface is missing. Instead you have functional units. These are significantly better than coprocessors as they can be involved in the pipeline of the processor and use some of it data without duplicating half of the processor chip in each functional unit. This is a quick summary. I can talk more as you see fit. Mark Bellon mbellon@xenurus.gould.com (name not changed yet) Software Project Scientist Motorola Urbana Design Center