Jonathan Kirwan wrote:> On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 09:45:07 +0100, David Brown > <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> wrote: > > >>Jonathan Kirwan wrote: >> >>>On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 12:12:13 +0000, Pete Fenelon <pete@fenelon.com> >>>wrote: >>> >>> >>>>David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>>to read data from an array. The msp430 is about as good as it gets for >>>>>16-bit cpus, for the same reasons. >>>> >>>>Essentially PDP-11 rethought ;) >>>><snip> >>> >>>Not as an improvement, in my opinion. >>> >>>Jon >> >>I remember that thread :-) >> >>The msp430 ISA is not perfect - some changes from the PDP-11 were >>improvements, some were clear tradeoffs for other reasons (smaller, >>faster or lower power design), and some changes were for the worse. But >>still, it is the nicest ISA available in a small, low power >>microcontroller at the moment. > > > I hold my position that the resulting design shows less experience > than it should have; from several different perspectives.That's to be expected - the MSP430 is quite an old design, IIRC coming from Germany and targeting firstly ROM devices for low power systems. It will have pre-dated C compilers. I see they now offer extended address reach in the MSP430. -jg
PIC vs ARM assembler (no flamewar please)
Started by ●February 14, 2007
Reply by ●February 16, 20072007-02-16
Reply by ●February 16, 20072007-02-16
Jim Granville wrote:>That's to be expected - the MSP430 is quite an old design, IIRC >coming from Germany and targeting firstly ROM devices for low power >systems. It will have pre-dated C compilers.That's news to me. The MSP430 family was announced with great fanfare by TI just a few years ago. Are you saying they are based on somebody else's older design? Roberto Waltman [ Please reply to the group, return address is invalid ]
Reply by ●February 16, 20072007-02-16
On 2007-02-16, Jim Granville <no.spam@designtools.maps.co.nz> wrote:>> I hold my position that the resulting design shows less experience >> than it should have; from several different perspectives. > > That's to be expected - the MSP430 is quite an old design, IIRC > coming from Germany and targeting firstly ROM devices for low power > systems. It will have pre-dated C compilers.What?!?! C compilers have been around for 30 years. The MSP430 has been around for what, 5 or 6 years? -- Grant Edwards grante Yow! Yow! Maybe I should at have asked for my Neutron visi.com Bomb in PAISLEY--
Reply by ●February 16, 20072007-02-16
Grant Edwards wrote:> On 2007-02-16, Jim Granville <no.spam@designtools.maps.co.nz> wrote: > > >>>I hold my position that the resulting design shows less experience >>>than it should have; from several different perspectives. >> >>That's to be expected - the MSP430 is quite an old design, IIRC >>coming from Germany and targeting firstly ROM devices for low power >>systems. It will have pre-dated C compilers. > > > What?!?! C compilers have been around for 30 years. The > MSP430 has been around for what, 5 or 6 years?I knew after I wrote that, that I should have used more words... :) - I meant the MSP430 Silicon was designed before they had a C compiler for the microcontroller. Clearly C technology itself is much older. It's the trendy thing these days to claim your core was 'Designed for C', but often that's just marketing spin. -jg
Reply by ●February 16, 20072007-02-16
Roberto Waltman wrote:> Jim Granville wrote: > >>That's to be expected - the MSP430 is quite an old design, IIRC >>coming from Germany and targeting firstly ROM devices for low power >>systems. It will have pre-dated C compilers. > > > That's news to me. The MSP430 family was announced with great fanfare > by TI just a few years ago. Are you saying they are based on somebody > else's older design?The flash version is relatively new, but the mask models go way-back. -jg
Reply by ●February 16, 20072007-02-16
On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 09:06:29 +1300, Jim Granville <no.spam@designtools.maps.co.nz> wrote:>Grant Edwards wrote: > >> On 2007-02-16, Jim Granville <no.spam@designtools.maps.co.nz> wrote: >> >> >>>>I hold my position that the resulting design shows less experience >>>>than it should have; from several different perspectives. >>> >>>That's to be expected - the MSP430 is quite an old design, IIRC >>>coming from Germany and targeting firstly ROM devices for low power >>>systems. It will have pre-dated C compilers. >> >> >> What?!?! C compilers have been around for 30 years. The >> MSP430 has been around for what, 5 or 6 years? > >I knew after I wrote that, that I should have used more words... :) > >- I meant the MSP430 Silicon was designed before they had >a C compiler for the microcontroller. >Clearly C technology itself is much older. > > It's the trendy thing these days to claim your core was >'Designed for C', but often that's just marketing spin.Hell, Jim, Lutz Bierl is SLAA024.PDF claims the MSP430 is RISC! Now, that's spin, indeed. http://users.easystreet.com/jkirwan/new/msp430.html Jon
Reply by ●February 16, 20072007-02-16
On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 13:39:50 +0100, "Ulf Samuelsson" <ulf@a-t-m-e-l.com> wrote:>The Series 32000 instruction set is way superior to anything mentioned so >far.I liked what I saw in the 32032, early on. Never did get a chance to actually use one. I also liked the 88k, around that time. Never actually used one of those, either, though. Still have manuals floating around here for both families, though. The 88k had an odd 'selling point' they made -- you could bond one CPU on top of another, all pins except just one to indicate which CPU was to observe and which was to actually work, and the monitoring CPU would duplicate all operations and signal an error if it ever decided that the working CPU did something different. :) Jon
Reply by ●February 16, 20072007-02-16
On 2007-02-16, Jonathan Kirwan <jkirwan@easystreet.com> wrote:>> It's the trendy thing these days to claim your core was >>'Designed for C', but often that's just marketing spin. > > Hell, Jim, Lutz Bierl is SLAA024.PDF claims the MSP430 is RISC!Yea, I argued with the FAE about that claim at the last MSP430-day seminar thing. He also claimed that it was a "one clock per isntruction" design.> Now, that's spin, indeed. > http://users.easystreet.com/jkirwan/new/msp430.htmlI think you misspelled "lying". ;) -- Grant Edwards grante Yow! I always wanted a at NOSE JOB!! visi.com
Reply by ●February 16, 20072007-02-16
On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 21:35:22 GMT, Jonathan Kirwan <jkirwan@easystreet.com> wrote:> >The 88k had an odd 'selling point' they made -- you could bond one CPU >on top of another, all pins except just one to indicate which CPU was >to observe and which was to actually work, and the monitoring CPU >would duplicate all operations and signal an error if it ever decided >that the working CPU did something different. :)Nice feature _if_ you have the luxury to put the system into "safe mode" when there is a disagreement. Paul
Reply by ●February 17, 20072007-02-17
On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 02:25:08 +0200, Paul Keinanen <keinanen@sci.fi> wrote:>On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 21:35:22 GMT, Jonathan Kirwan ><jkirwan@easystreet.com> wrote: > >>The 88k had an odd 'selling point' they made -- you could bond one CPU >>on top of another, all pins except just one to indicate which CPU was >>to observe and which was to actually work, and the monitoring CPU >>would duplicate all operations and signal an error if it ever decided >>that the working CPU did something different. :) > >Nice feature _if_ you have the luxury to put the system into "safe >mode" when there is a disagreement.The application that came immediately to mind was use in space, such as on satellites or mars missions, to detect soft errors. Jon
