Content deleted Content added
Guy Harris (talk | contribs) →instructions or operations?: Just say "machine operation" rather than "instruction" - and update various pages when your shiny new ISA is announced. |
|||
Line 70:
:::Are you thinking of [[VLIW]]? [[User:Guy Harris|Guy Harris]] ([[User talk:Guy Harris|talk]]) 21:36, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
::::I am not at liberty to give an example for now. But what if there were a VLIW that has the properties I'm positing? [[User:Encyclopedant|Encyclopedant]] ([[User talk:Encyclopedant|talk]]) 00:27, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
:::::So presumably if and when this new machine finally comes out, the [[opcode]] and [[instruction (computer science)]] pages will be updated to take it into account?
:::::"a computer in which a single operation (dictated by a single opcode) can execute several low-level operations (such as a load from memory, an arithmetic operation, and a memory store) and/or are capable of multi-step operations or addressing modes within single operations" uses "operation" in two separate senses, so it's potentially confusing. "a computer in which a single operation (dictated by a single opcode) can execute a load from memory, an operation on the loaded data, and a store of the result" is better, although it seems to imply that, to be a CISC processor, you have to be able to do a load ''and'' a store in a single machine operation, and a lot of CISCs don't do that. I might be tempted to just change the opening sentence to say "where single machine operations (specified by a single [[opcode]]) can execute several low-level operations ... and/or are capable of multi-step operations or addressing modes within single machine operations", i.e. just replace "instruction" by "machine operation" and, the first time "machine operation" is used, note that a "machine operation" is what's specified by a single opcode. [[User:Guy Harris|Guy Harris]] ([[User talk:Guy Harris|talk]]) 18:56, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
| |||