[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: A simple cpufreq(9)
On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 09:26:12AM -0500, Paul_Koning%Dell.com@localhost wrote:
> >>> The cache and mmu are probably harder than the cpu :-)
> >> I'm not sure the PDP-10 even _had_ cache; I'd have to do some digging
> >> on that score. And I have no idea what it had for an MMU. The only
> >> non-power-of-two-word-size machine I've ever actually used, as far as
> >> I can recall, was a PDP-8. I'm interested in NetBSD/pdp10 less for
> >> personal nostalgia value than for the code cleanup it would enforce.
> One "minor" problem is to get gcc to cope with that. There's a
> very old gcc port (2.95 era), I'm not sure how complete that is.
> At that time gcc had machinery in it for dealing with machines
> whose byte is not 8 bits, and/or that are not byte addressable.
> The former is gone now, and the latter may also be. (Maybe not;
> there might still be DSP-type gcc targets that use it.) It doesn't
> seem horribly difficult to resurrect it, though.
As ragge has posted before, he originally took up pcc to address this
(I think it would probably be more effective, if not as
retro-attractive, to define a new 36-bit architecture... this would
make a bunch of routine stuff easier and allow concentrating on the
David A. Holland
Main Index |
Thread Index |