Used interrupts on both 68k & PIC, want 68k w/onboard memory & JTAG/BDM

On Sep 7, 9:15=A0pm, linnix <m...@linnix.info-for.us> wrote:
> ....
> In a way, we have to thank the x86 marketer for beating the 68k.
> Otherwise, many programmers would stay with assemblers and C would not
> be as popular. C masks out the ugly x86 architecture.

Indeed so. The world has to thank x86 for making C popular and
thus totally messing up programming for decades - so far.
This probably sounds weird to almost everyone; likely because
C has always been the only thing "everyone" has ever been good
at...

Didi

------------------------------------------------------
Dimiter Popoff               Transgalactic Instruments

http://www.tgi-sci.com
------------------------------------------------------
http://www.flickr.com/photos/didi_tgi/sets/72157600228621276/

Original message: http://groups.google.com/group/comp.arch.embedded/msg/f72=
4b65b3f8f4483?dmode=3Dsource

On Sun, 7 Sep 2008 11:35:44 -0700 (PDT), Didi <dp@tgi-sci.com> wrote:

>On Sep 7, 9:15&#4294967295;pm, linnix <m...@linnix.info-for.us> wrote:
>> ....
>> In a way, we have to thank the x86 marketer for beating the 68k.
>> Otherwise, many programmers would stay with assemblers and C would not
>> be as popular. C masks out the ugly x86 architecture.
>
>Indeed so. The world has to thank x86 for making C popular and
>thus totally messing up programming for decades - so far.
>This probably sounds weird to almost everyone; likely because
>C has always been the only thing "everyone" has ever been good
>at...

The strange thing is that C became so common and not PLM-86.

A few years earlier, most 8-bitters were programmed in assembler, but
Intel marketed the PLM-80 to mask the ugly 8080 architecture. PLM-80
was used quite a lot in those days.

Paul

linnix wrote:
>>  From the very start, the 68k had a 32-bit programming architecture.
>> For cost reasons, the implementation used a 16-bit ALU and datapath, but
>> all the registers were 32-bit, and all instructions supported 8-bit,
>> 16-bit and 32-bit widths (even though the 32-bit versions took twice as
>> many clock cycles).  This meant that when 32-bit ALUs became
>> economically feasible, the 68k just got faster with the same software,
>> unlike the x86 architecture that got seriously ugly in the move to 32 bits.
> 
> In a way, we have to thank the x86 marketer for beating the 68k.
> Otherwise, many programmers would stay with assemblers and C would not
> be as popular.  C masks out the ugly x86 architecture.
> 

People have used C on the 68k for about as long as there has been C (68k 
cpus were a popular choice for early unix workstations such as Sun's 
first machines, unlike x86 which only gained serious *nix popularity 
with Linux.  It was also the original target for gcc).  Writing a C 
compiler for the 68k is peanuts compared to writing one for the x86, 
since the 68k has a wide set of mostly orthogonal registers, plenty of 
address registers, and addressing modes ideal for C.  Getting the best 
out of an x86 device is a black art, and it was a long time before C 
compilers could compete with professional x86 assembler programmers.  So 
I expect most serious x86 development was still being done in assembly 
long after C (and other high level languages) were standard on the 68k 
(the Mac OS being a notable exception, written mostly in assembly for 
some reason).

The legacy of assembly on the x86 is one of the reasons why the 
instruction set is so hideous - it has had to keep 100% binary 
compatibility because you can't just recompile your assembly code for a 
new architecture.  The 68k architecture, on the other hand, has seen 
many binary incompatible changes (such as the removal of rarer 
addressing modes) to improve efficiency.