Jump to content



1

32 Bit Processor for the 8-Bit Product Line!


59 replies to this topic

#51 DamageX OFFLINE  

DamageX

    Chopper Commander

  • 236 posts

Posted Mon May 1, 2006 1:43 AM

If you want to know about 74xxx parts check www.chipdir.org or get a TTL Data Book

Am I the only one who sees the irony of a link being posted here to a Rick Balkins thread?

#52 UNIXcoffee928 OFFLINE  

UNIXcoffee928

    Dragonstomper

  • 946 posts
  • Location:Sosaria, USA

Posted Mon May 1, 2006 2:08 AM

Due to lack of interest this post has been removed.

Edited by UNIXcoffee928, Thu May 4, 2006 8:06 AM.


#53 danwinslow OFFLINE  

danwinslow

    Stargunner

  • 1,748 posts

Posted Mon May 1, 2006 4:20 AM

My Irony Sensor performed a panic shutdown several posts back.

#54 UNIXcoffee928 OFFLINE  

UNIXcoffee928

    Dragonstomper

  • 946 posts
  • Location:Sosaria, USA

Posted Mon May 1, 2006 2:02 PM

Whatever.

-UNIXcoffee928

#55 mos6507 OFFLINE  

mos6507

    River Patroller

  • 4,728 posts

Posted Tue May 2, 2006 12:43 AM

View Postdrac030, on Sun Apr 30, 2006 5:05 AM, said:

View Postmos6507, on Sun Apr 30, 2006 10:29 AM, said:

Terbium discussions go back at least two years.

This I wouldn't call "ages" either, but surely you're right that it is a bit earlier than I thought. I am pretty sure though that there was no information about 65T32 on the WDC page two years ago (or even a year ago - but about this I am not so sure).

Let me know when they start offering a physical part. It just seems like it's taking too long and I think I know why. The 65816 was a novel solution to turning the 6502 into a 16-bit machine. Going to 32-bit while maintaining any sort of meaningful backwards compatibility is a big challenge.

#56 drac030 OFFLINE  

drac030

    Stargunner

  • 1,023 posts
  • Location:Warszawa, Poland

Posted Tue May 2, 2006 3:03 AM

Looking at the 65C816 as a 16-bit extension to 6502, it is rather hard to anticipate WDC's 32-bit extension to the 65C816. But I tend to think that the main difficulty may be the 16-bit data bus, and not the software backward compatibility. At least, there's quite a bit of spare opcodes to be used with new 32-bit addressing modes (I mean the reserved range of $0280-$02FF), and yet the WDM instruction, which may be used as a prefix, so the operation of the opcodes existing so far does not have to be modified or affected by the 32-bit extension.

Edited by drac030, Tue May 2, 2006 3:05 AM.


#57 danwinslow OFFLINE  

danwinslow

    Stargunner

  • 1,748 posts

Posted Wed May 3, 2006 5:23 PM

What, no status? I was looking forward to the 'parallel workflow diagram'.

#58 warerat OFFLINE  

warerat

    Moonsweeper

  • 395 posts
  • Location:Houston, TX

Posted Wed May 3, 2006 6:48 PM

Post deleted.

Edited by warerat, Thu May 4, 2006 11:47 AM.


#59 UNIXcoffee928 OFFLINE  

UNIXcoffee928

    Dragonstomper

  • 946 posts
  • Location:Sosaria, USA

Posted Thu May 4, 2006 8:07 AM

Whatever.

#60 ApolloBoy OFFLINE  

ApolloBoy

    Hosse Hosse Hosse

  • 4,677 posts
  • Location:San Jose, CA

Posted Sat May 13, 2006 1:46 PM

What's going on here? I'm seeing a lot of removed posts, and it's bugging me since I'd like to see an 8-bit use a 32-bit CPU...




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users