From nobody Tue Oct 17 23:08:31 2000 X-From-Line: ddyer@bigfoot.com Tue Oct 17 19:11:20 2000 Received: from [24.130.1.15] (helo=lsmls02.we.mediaone.net) by junk.nocrew.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) for lars@nocrew.org id 13laGl-0002FT-00; Tue, 17 Oct 2000 19:11:19 +0200 Received: from turnip.nowhere (we-24-130-9-112.we.mediaone.net [24.130.9.112]) by lsmls02.we.mediaone.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id KAA08220 for ; Tue, 17 Oct 2000 10:10:01 -0700 (PDT) X-Gnus-Mail-Source: file:/var/spool/mail/lars Message-Id: <5.0.0.25.1.20001017100546.035b5080@pop.we.mediaone.net> X-Sender: ddyer@pop.we.mediaone.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.0 Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 10:12:23 -0700 To: lars brinkhoff From: Dave Dyer Subject: Re: Foonly processors In-Reply-To: <85aec3luwd.fsf@junk.nocrew.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Lines: 26 Xref: junk.nocrew.org personal:4398 It's not really accurate to say that the F-1 was a pdp-10 clone. Both the KL and Foonly were based on a design done at SAIL. F-1 has essentially essentuially the same cache and memory management as the KL. The F-1 actually operated in KA-10 mode, because the cash to finish development wasn't avaialable, and it was immediately pushed into production work by the Triple-I movie group. Likewise, F-1 had hardware support for the full complement of floating point and extended instructions, but some were never actually coded. In microcoded machines, it's rather a moot point if a machine "has" an instruction, don't you thing? At 01:44 AM 10/17/00, lars brinkhoff wrote: >Hello, > >I'm collecting information about PDP-10 processors and clones: > http://pdp10.nocrew.org/cpu/processors.html > >I would greatly appreciate any information or corrections you can come >up with, especially on the Foonly processors. > >Thank you.