Have programming languages driven hardware development?
Programming language development has been influenced by hardware design. One example from this answer mentions how C pointers were, at least in part, influenced by the design of the PDP-11. Has the reverse taken place, where a construct provided by a language drove the development of hardware?
To be clear, I'm wondering about core language constructs, like pointers for example, rather than industry consortiums coming up with something like OpenGL then being implemented in hardware. Perhaps hardware floating-point support?
hardware software c
New contributor
add a comment |
Programming language development has been influenced by hardware design. One example from this answer mentions how C pointers were, at least in part, influenced by the design of the PDP-11. Has the reverse taken place, where a construct provided by a language drove the development of hardware?
To be clear, I'm wondering about core language constructs, like pointers for example, rather than industry consortiums coming up with something like OpenGL then being implemented in hardware. Perhaps hardware floating-point support?
hardware software c
New contributor
Welcome to Retrocomputing. Nice question!
– Dr Sheldon
3 hours ago
Similar question is also true for operating systems: inter process protection & security, paging & virtual memory, fast context switching, etc..
– Erik Eidt
3 hours ago
1
As a cautionary tale we should perhaps mention the iAPX 432
– another-dave
2 hours ago
I'm pretty sure that many of the RISC processors were designed specifically to be good targets for compilers; I'm seeking a source.
– Tommy
1 hour ago
@Tommy RISC CPUs are interesting case. They were designed in era where it was obvious that they'd be almost exclusively running compiled code, so were designed with compilers in mind. On the other hand, many RISC CPUs were designed with certain features and limitations that required compilers implement things they didn't have to previously. For example, branch delay slots and pipelining required that the compiler to reorder instructions in order to generate the most efficient code. (In the end it proved CPUs can do a better job of reordering instructions than compilers.)
– Ross Ridge
1 hour ago
add a comment |
Programming language development has been influenced by hardware design. One example from this answer mentions how C pointers were, at least in part, influenced by the design of the PDP-11. Has the reverse taken place, where a construct provided by a language drove the development of hardware?
To be clear, I'm wondering about core language constructs, like pointers for example, rather than industry consortiums coming up with something like OpenGL then being implemented in hardware. Perhaps hardware floating-point support?
hardware software c
New contributor
Programming language development has been influenced by hardware design. One example from this answer mentions how C pointers were, at least in part, influenced by the design of the PDP-11. Has the reverse taken place, where a construct provided by a language drove the development of hardware?
To be clear, I'm wondering about core language constructs, like pointers for example, rather than industry consortiums coming up with something like OpenGL then being implemented in hardware. Perhaps hardware floating-point support?
hardware software c
hardware software c
New contributor
New contributor
New contributor
asked 4 hours ago
NathanNathan
161
161
New contributor
New contributor
Welcome to Retrocomputing. Nice question!
– Dr Sheldon
3 hours ago
Similar question is also true for operating systems: inter process protection & security, paging & virtual memory, fast context switching, etc..
– Erik Eidt
3 hours ago
1
As a cautionary tale we should perhaps mention the iAPX 432
– another-dave
2 hours ago
I'm pretty sure that many of the RISC processors were designed specifically to be good targets for compilers; I'm seeking a source.
– Tommy
1 hour ago
@Tommy RISC CPUs are interesting case. They were designed in era where it was obvious that they'd be almost exclusively running compiled code, so were designed with compilers in mind. On the other hand, many RISC CPUs were designed with certain features and limitations that required compilers implement things they didn't have to previously. For example, branch delay slots and pipelining required that the compiler to reorder instructions in order to generate the most efficient code. (In the end it proved CPUs can do a better job of reordering instructions than compilers.)
– Ross Ridge
1 hour ago
add a comment |
Welcome to Retrocomputing. Nice question!
– Dr Sheldon
3 hours ago
Similar question is also true for operating systems: inter process protection & security, paging & virtual memory, fast context switching, etc..
– Erik Eidt
3 hours ago
1
As a cautionary tale we should perhaps mention the iAPX 432
– another-dave
2 hours ago
I'm pretty sure that many of the RISC processors were designed specifically to be good targets for compilers; I'm seeking a source.
– Tommy
1 hour ago
@Tommy RISC CPUs are interesting case. They were designed in era where it was obvious that they'd be almost exclusively running compiled code, so were designed with compilers in mind. On the other hand, many RISC CPUs were designed with certain features and limitations that required compilers implement things they didn't have to previously. For example, branch delay slots and pipelining required that the compiler to reorder instructions in order to generate the most efficient code. (In the end it proved CPUs can do a better job of reordering instructions than compilers.)
– Ross Ridge
1 hour ago
Welcome to Retrocomputing. Nice question!
– Dr Sheldon
3 hours ago
Welcome to Retrocomputing. Nice question!
– Dr Sheldon
3 hours ago
Similar question is also true for operating systems: inter process protection & security, paging & virtual memory, fast context switching, etc..
– Erik Eidt
3 hours ago
Similar question is also true for operating systems: inter process protection & security, paging & virtual memory, fast context switching, etc..
– Erik Eidt
3 hours ago
1
1
As a cautionary tale we should perhaps mention the iAPX 432
– another-dave
2 hours ago
As a cautionary tale we should perhaps mention the iAPX 432
– another-dave
2 hours ago
I'm pretty sure that many of the RISC processors were designed specifically to be good targets for compilers; I'm seeking a source.
– Tommy
1 hour ago
I'm pretty sure that many of the RISC processors were designed specifically to be good targets for compilers; I'm seeking a source.
– Tommy
1 hour ago
@Tommy RISC CPUs are interesting case. They were designed in era where it was obvious that they'd be almost exclusively running compiled code, so were designed with compilers in mind. On the other hand, many RISC CPUs were designed with certain features and limitations that required compilers implement things they didn't have to previously. For example, branch delay slots and pipelining required that the compiler to reorder instructions in order to generate the most efficient code. (In the end it proved CPUs can do a better job of reordering instructions than compilers.)
– Ross Ridge
1 hour ago
@Tommy RISC CPUs are interesting case. They were designed in era where it was obvious that they'd be almost exclusively running compiled code, so were designed with compilers in mind. On the other hand, many RISC CPUs were designed with certain features and limitations that required compilers implement things they didn't have to previously. For example, branch delay slots and pipelining required that the compiler to reorder instructions in order to generate the most efficient code. (In the end it proved CPUs can do a better job of reordering instructions than compilers.)
– Ross Ridge
1 hour ago
add a comment |
5 Answers
5
active
oldest
votes
Simply yes.
And not just a few instructions, but whole CPUs have been developed with languages in mind. Most prominent maybe Intel's 8086. Already the basic CPU was designed to support the way high level languages handle memory management, especially stack allocation and usage. With BP a separate register for stack frames and addressing was added in conjunction with short encodings for stack related addressing to make HLL programs perform. The 80186/286 went further in this direction by adding Enter/Leave instructions for stack frame handling.
While it can be said that the base 8086 was more geared toward languages like Pascal or PL/M (*1,2), later incarnations added many ways to support the now prevalent C primitives - not at least scaling factors for indices.
*1 - Most remarkable here the string functions which make only sense in languages supporting strings as discrete data type.
*2 - Stephen Morse's 8086 primer is still a good read - especially when he talks about the finer details. Similar and quite recommended his 2008 interview about the 8086 creation where he describes his approach as mostly HLL driven.
add a comment |
Yes. Case in point, the VAX. The instruction set design was influenced by the requirements of the compiled languages of the day. For example, the orthogonality of the ISA; the provision of instructions that map to language constructs such as 'case' statements (in the numbered-case sense of Hoare's original formulation, not the labelled-case of C), loop statements, and so on.
VAX Architecture Ref - see the Introduction.
I am not claiming the VAX is unique in this respect, just an example I know a little about. As a second example, I'll mention the Burroughs B6500 'display' registers. A display, in 1960s speak, is a mechanism for efficient uplevel references. If your language, such as Algol60, permits declaration of nested procedures to any depth, then arbitrary references to the local variables of different levels of enclosing procedure require special handling. The mechanism used (the 'display') was invented for KDF9 Whetstone Algol by Randell and Russell, and described in their book Algol 60 Implementation. The B6500 incorporates that into hardware:
The B6500/B7500 contains a network of Display Registers (D0 through
D31) which are caused to point at the appropriate MSCW (Fig. 5). The
local variables of all procedures global to the current procedure are
addressed in the B6500/B7500 relative to the Display Registers.
as well as more registers for local variables, and large, regular address space rather than smaller banks that can be activated one at a time..
– Erik Eidt
3 hours ago
add a comment |
I recall, back in the 80’s, and referenced in the Wikipedia article, Bellmac 32 CPU, which became the AT&T Western Electric WE32100 CPU was supposedly designed for the C programming language.
This CPU was used by AT&T in their 3B2 line of Unix systems. There was also a single board VME bus version of it that some third parties used. Zilog also came out with a line of Unix systems using this chip - I think they were a second source for it for AT&T.
I did a lot of work with these in the 80’s and probably early 90’s. It was pretty much a dog in terms of performance, if I remember.
add a comment |
Arguably, the relatively simple logical structure of DO loops in Fortran motivated the development of vector hardware on the early Cray and Cyber supercomputers. There may be some "chicken and egg" between hardware and software development though, since CDC Fortran included array slicing operations to encourage programmers to write "logic-free" loops long before that syntax became standardized in Fortran 90.
Certainly the Cray XMP hardware enhancements compared with the Cray 1, such as improved "chaining" (i.e. overlapping in time) of vector operations, vector mask instructions, and gather/scatter vector addressing, were aimed at improving the performance of typical code written in "idiomatic" Fortran.
The need to find a way to overcome the I/O bottlenecks caused by faster computation, without the prohibitive expense of large fast memory, led to the development of the early Cray SSD storage devices as an intermediate level between main memory conventional disk and tape storage devices. Fortran I/O statements made it easy to read and write a random-access file as if it were a large two-dimensional array of data.
See section 2 of http://www.chilton-computing.org.uk/ccd/supercomputers/p005.htm for an 1988 paper by the head of the Cray XMP design team.
There was a downside to this, in that the performance of the first Cray C compilers (and hence the first implementation of the Unix-like Cray operating system UNICOS) was abysmal, since the hardware had no native character-at-a-time instructions, and there was little computer science theory available to attempt to vectorize idiomatic "C-style" loops with a relatively unstructured combination of pointer manipulation and logical tests, compared with Fortran's more rigidly structured DO loops.
add a comment |
The first page of the Intel 8086 data sheet lists the processor's features, which include
- Architecture Designed for Powerful Assembly Language and Efficient High Level Languages
In particular, C and other high-level languages use the stack for arguments and local variables. The 8086 has both a stack pointer (SP) and a frame pointer (BP) which address memory using the stack segment (SS) rather than other segments (CS, DS, ES).
The datasheet for the 8087 co-processor has the following section:
PROGRAMMING LANGUAGE SUPPORT
Programs for the 8087 can be written in Intel's high-level languages for 8086/8088 and 80186/80188 systems; ASM-86 (the 8086, 8088 assembly language), PL/M-86, FORTRAN-86, and PASCAL-86.
The 80286 added several instructions to the architecture to aid high-level languages. PUSHA
, POPA
, ENTER
, and LEAVE
help with subroutine calls. The BOUND
instruction was useful for array bounds checking and switch
-style control statements. Other instructions unrelated to high-level languages were added as well.
The 80386 added bitfield instructions, which are used in C.
The Motorola MC68000 Microprocessor User's Manual states:
2.2.2 Structured Modular Programming
[...]
The availability of advanced, structured assemblers and block-structured high-level languages such as Pascal simplifies modular programming. Such concepts are virtually useless, however, unless parameters are easily transferred between and within software modules that operate on a re-entrant and recursive basis.
[...]
The MC68000 provides architectural features that allow efficient re-entrant modular programming. Two complementary instructions, link and allocate (LINK
) and unlink (UNLK
), reduce subroutine call overhead by manipulating linked lists of data areas on the stack. The move multiple register instruction (MOVEM
) also reduces subroutine call programming overhead.
[...]
Other instructions that support modern structured programming techniques are push effective address (PEA
), load effective address (LEA
), return and restore (RTR
), return from exception (RTE
), jump to subroutine (JSR
), branch to subroutine (BSR
), and return from subroutine (RTS
).
The 68020 added bitfield instructions, which are used in C.
Whereas the above processors added instructions to support programming languages, Reduced Instruction-Set Computers (RISC) took the opposite approach. By analyzing which instructions compilers actually used, they were able to discard many complex instructions that weren't being used. This allowed the architecture to be simplified, shorten the instruction cycle length, and reduce instructions to one cycle, speeding up processors significantly.
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "648"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Nathan is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fretrocomputing.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f8869%2fhave-programming-languages-driven-hardware-development%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
5 Answers
5
active
oldest
votes
5 Answers
5
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Simply yes.
And not just a few instructions, but whole CPUs have been developed with languages in mind. Most prominent maybe Intel's 8086. Already the basic CPU was designed to support the way high level languages handle memory management, especially stack allocation and usage. With BP a separate register for stack frames and addressing was added in conjunction with short encodings for stack related addressing to make HLL programs perform. The 80186/286 went further in this direction by adding Enter/Leave instructions for stack frame handling.
While it can be said that the base 8086 was more geared toward languages like Pascal or PL/M (*1,2), later incarnations added many ways to support the now prevalent C primitives - not at least scaling factors for indices.
*1 - Most remarkable here the string functions which make only sense in languages supporting strings as discrete data type.
*2 - Stephen Morse's 8086 primer is still a good read - especially when he talks about the finer details. Similar and quite recommended his 2008 interview about the 8086 creation where he describes his approach as mostly HLL driven.
add a comment |
Simply yes.
And not just a few instructions, but whole CPUs have been developed with languages in mind. Most prominent maybe Intel's 8086. Already the basic CPU was designed to support the way high level languages handle memory management, especially stack allocation and usage. With BP a separate register for stack frames and addressing was added in conjunction with short encodings for stack related addressing to make HLL programs perform. The 80186/286 went further in this direction by adding Enter/Leave instructions for stack frame handling.
While it can be said that the base 8086 was more geared toward languages like Pascal or PL/M (*1,2), later incarnations added many ways to support the now prevalent C primitives - not at least scaling factors for indices.
*1 - Most remarkable here the string functions which make only sense in languages supporting strings as discrete data type.
*2 - Stephen Morse's 8086 primer is still a good read - especially when he talks about the finer details. Similar and quite recommended his 2008 interview about the 8086 creation where he describes his approach as mostly HLL driven.
add a comment |
Simply yes.
And not just a few instructions, but whole CPUs have been developed with languages in mind. Most prominent maybe Intel's 8086. Already the basic CPU was designed to support the way high level languages handle memory management, especially stack allocation and usage. With BP a separate register for stack frames and addressing was added in conjunction with short encodings for stack related addressing to make HLL programs perform. The 80186/286 went further in this direction by adding Enter/Leave instructions for stack frame handling.
While it can be said that the base 8086 was more geared toward languages like Pascal or PL/M (*1,2), later incarnations added many ways to support the now prevalent C primitives - not at least scaling factors for indices.
*1 - Most remarkable here the string functions which make only sense in languages supporting strings as discrete data type.
*2 - Stephen Morse's 8086 primer is still a good read - especially when he talks about the finer details. Similar and quite recommended his 2008 interview about the 8086 creation where he describes his approach as mostly HLL driven.
Simply yes.
And not just a few instructions, but whole CPUs have been developed with languages in mind. Most prominent maybe Intel's 8086. Already the basic CPU was designed to support the way high level languages handle memory management, especially stack allocation and usage. With BP a separate register for stack frames and addressing was added in conjunction with short encodings for stack related addressing to make HLL programs perform. The 80186/286 went further in this direction by adding Enter/Leave instructions for stack frame handling.
While it can be said that the base 8086 was more geared toward languages like Pascal or PL/M (*1,2), later incarnations added many ways to support the now prevalent C primitives - not at least scaling factors for indices.
*1 - Most remarkable here the string functions which make only sense in languages supporting strings as discrete data type.
*2 - Stephen Morse's 8086 primer is still a good read - especially when he talks about the finer details. Similar and quite recommended his 2008 interview about the 8086 creation where he describes his approach as mostly HLL driven.
answered 2 hours ago
RaffzahnRaffzahn
47.9k5108193
47.9k5108193
add a comment |
add a comment |
Yes. Case in point, the VAX. The instruction set design was influenced by the requirements of the compiled languages of the day. For example, the orthogonality of the ISA; the provision of instructions that map to language constructs such as 'case' statements (in the numbered-case sense of Hoare's original formulation, not the labelled-case of C), loop statements, and so on.
VAX Architecture Ref - see the Introduction.
I am not claiming the VAX is unique in this respect, just an example I know a little about. As a second example, I'll mention the Burroughs B6500 'display' registers. A display, in 1960s speak, is a mechanism for efficient uplevel references. If your language, such as Algol60, permits declaration of nested procedures to any depth, then arbitrary references to the local variables of different levels of enclosing procedure require special handling. The mechanism used (the 'display') was invented for KDF9 Whetstone Algol by Randell and Russell, and described in their book Algol 60 Implementation. The B6500 incorporates that into hardware:
The B6500/B7500 contains a network of Display Registers (D0 through
D31) which are caused to point at the appropriate MSCW (Fig. 5). The
local variables of all procedures global to the current procedure are
addressed in the B6500/B7500 relative to the Display Registers.
as well as more registers for local variables, and large, regular address space rather than smaller banks that can be activated one at a time..
– Erik Eidt
3 hours ago
add a comment |
Yes. Case in point, the VAX. The instruction set design was influenced by the requirements of the compiled languages of the day. For example, the orthogonality of the ISA; the provision of instructions that map to language constructs such as 'case' statements (in the numbered-case sense of Hoare's original formulation, not the labelled-case of C), loop statements, and so on.
VAX Architecture Ref - see the Introduction.
I am not claiming the VAX is unique in this respect, just an example I know a little about. As a second example, I'll mention the Burroughs B6500 'display' registers. A display, in 1960s speak, is a mechanism for efficient uplevel references. If your language, such as Algol60, permits declaration of nested procedures to any depth, then arbitrary references to the local variables of different levels of enclosing procedure require special handling. The mechanism used (the 'display') was invented for KDF9 Whetstone Algol by Randell and Russell, and described in their book Algol 60 Implementation. The B6500 incorporates that into hardware:
The B6500/B7500 contains a network of Display Registers (D0 through
D31) which are caused to point at the appropriate MSCW (Fig. 5). The
local variables of all procedures global to the current procedure are
addressed in the B6500/B7500 relative to the Display Registers.
as well as more registers for local variables, and large, regular address space rather than smaller banks that can be activated one at a time..
– Erik Eidt
3 hours ago
add a comment |
Yes. Case in point, the VAX. The instruction set design was influenced by the requirements of the compiled languages of the day. For example, the orthogonality of the ISA; the provision of instructions that map to language constructs such as 'case' statements (in the numbered-case sense of Hoare's original formulation, not the labelled-case of C), loop statements, and so on.
VAX Architecture Ref - see the Introduction.
I am not claiming the VAX is unique in this respect, just an example I know a little about. As a second example, I'll mention the Burroughs B6500 'display' registers. A display, in 1960s speak, is a mechanism for efficient uplevel references. If your language, such as Algol60, permits declaration of nested procedures to any depth, then arbitrary references to the local variables of different levels of enclosing procedure require special handling. The mechanism used (the 'display') was invented for KDF9 Whetstone Algol by Randell and Russell, and described in their book Algol 60 Implementation. The B6500 incorporates that into hardware:
The B6500/B7500 contains a network of Display Registers (D0 through
D31) which are caused to point at the appropriate MSCW (Fig. 5). The
local variables of all procedures global to the current procedure are
addressed in the B6500/B7500 relative to the Display Registers.
Yes. Case in point, the VAX. The instruction set design was influenced by the requirements of the compiled languages of the day. For example, the orthogonality of the ISA; the provision of instructions that map to language constructs such as 'case' statements (in the numbered-case sense of Hoare's original formulation, not the labelled-case of C), loop statements, and so on.
VAX Architecture Ref - see the Introduction.
I am not claiming the VAX is unique in this respect, just an example I know a little about. As a second example, I'll mention the Burroughs B6500 'display' registers. A display, in 1960s speak, is a mechanism for efficient uplevel references. If your language, such as Algol60, permits declaration of nested procedures to any depth, then arbitrary references to the local variables of different levels of enclosing procedure require special handling. The mechanism used (the 'display') was invented for KDF9 Whetstone Algol by Randell and Russell, and described in their book Algol 60 Implementation. The B6500 incorporates that into hardware:
The B6500/B7500 contains a network of Display Registers (D0 through
D31) which are caused to point at the appropriate MSCW (Fig. 5). The
local variables of all procedures global to the current procedure are
addressed in the B6500/B7500 relative to the Display Registers.
edited 2 hours ago
answered 3 hours ago
another-daveanother-dave
63718
63718
as well as more registers for local variables, and large, regular address space rather than smaller banks that can be activated one at a time..
– Erik Eidt
3 hours ago
add a comment |
as well as more registers for local variables, and large, regular address space rather than smaller banks that can be activated one at a time..
– Erik Eidt
3 hours ago
as well as more registers for local variables, and large, regular address space rather than smaller banks that can be activated one at a time..
– Erik Eidt
3 hours ago
as well as more registers for local variables, and large, regular address space rather than smaller banks that can be activated one at a time..
– Erik Eidt
3 hours ago
add a comment |
I recall, back in the 80’s, and referenced in the Wikipedia article, Bellmac 32 CPU, which became the AT&T Western Electric WE32100 CPU was supposedly designed for the C programming language.
This CPU was used by AT&T in their 3B2 line of Unix systems. There was also a single board VME bus version of it that some third parties used. Zilog also came out with a line of Unix systems using this chip - I think they were a second source for it for AT&T.
I did a lot of work with these in the 80’s and probably early 90’s. It was pretty much a dog in terms of performance, if I remember.
add a comment |
I recall, back in the 80’s, and referenced in the Wikipedia article, Bellmac 32 CPU, which became the AT&T Western Electric WE32100 CPU was supposedly designed for the C programming language.
This CPU was used by AT&T in their 3B2 line of Unix systems. There was also a single board VME bus version of it that some third parties used. Zilog also came out with a line of Unix systems using this chip - I think they were a second source for it for AT&T.
I did a lot of work with these in the 80’s and probably early 90’s. It was pretty much a dog in terms of performance, if I remember.
add a comment |
I recall, back in the 80’s, and referenced in the Wikipedia article, Bellmac 32 CPU, which became the AT&T Western Electric WE32100 CPU was supposedly designed for the C programming language.
This CPU was used by AT&T in their 3B2 line of Unix systems. There was also a single board VME bus version of it that some third parties used. Zilog also came out with a line of Unix systems using this chip - I think they were a second source for it for AT&T.
I did a lot of work with these in the 80’s and probably early 90’s. It was pretty much a dog in terms of performance, if I remember.
I recall, back in the 80’s, and referenced in the Wikipedia article, Bellmac 32 CPU, which became the AT&T Western Electric WE32100 CPU was supposedly designed for the C programming language.
This CPU was used by AT&T in their 3B2 line of Unix systems. There was also a single board VME bus version of it that some third parties used. Zilog also came out with a line of Unix systems using this chip - I think they were a second source for it for AT&T.
I did a lot of work with these in the 80’s and probably early 90’s. It was pretty much a dog in terms of performance, if I remember.
answered 2 hours ago
mannaggiamannaggia
1,101157
1,101157
add a comment |
add a comment |
Arguably, the relatively simple logical structure of DO loops in Fortran motivated the development of vector hardware on the early Cray and Cyber supercomputers. There may be some "chicken and egg" between hardware and software development though, since CDC Fortran included array slicing operations to encourage programmers to write "logic-free" loops long before that syntax became standardized in Fortran 90.
Certainly the Cray XMP hardware enhancements compared with the Cray 1, such as improved "chaining" (i.e. overlapping in time) of vector operations, vector mask instructions, and gather/scatter vector addressing, were aimed at improving the performance of typical code written in "idiomatic" Fortran.
The need to find a way to overcome the I/O bottlenecks caused by faster computation, without the prohibitive expense of large fast memory, led to the development of the early Cray SSD storage devices as an intermediate level between main memory conventional disk and tape storage devices. Fortran I/O statements made it easy to read and write a random-access file as if it were a large two-dimensional array of data.
See section 2 of http://www.chilton-computing.org.uk/ccd/supercomputers/p005.htm for an 1988 paper by the head of the Cray XMP design team.
There was a downside to this, in that the performance of the first Cray C compilers (and hence the first implementation of the Unix-like Cray operating system UNICOS) was abysmal, since the hardware had no native character-at-a-time instructions, and there was little computer science theory available to attempt to vectorize idiomatic "C-style" loops with a relatively unstructured combination of pointer manipulation and logical tests, compared with Fortran's more rigidly structured DO loops.
add a comment |
Arguably, the relatively simple logical structure of DO loops in Fortran motivated the development of vector hardware on the early Cray and Cyber supercomputers. There may be some "chicken and egg" between hardware and software development though, since CDC Fortran included array slicing operations to encourage programmers to write "logic-free" loops long before that syntax became standardized in Fortran 90.
Certainly the Cray XMP hardware enhancements compared with the Cray 1, such as improved "chaining" (i.e. overlapping in time) of vector operations, vector mask instructions, and gather/scatter vector addressing, were aimed at improving the performance of typical code written in "idiomatic" Fortran.
The need to find a way to overcome the I/O bottlenecks caused by faster computation, without the prohibitive expense of large fast memory, led to the development of the early Cray SSD storage devices as an intermediate level between main memory conventional disk and tape storage devices. Fortran I/O statements made it easy to read and write a random-access file as if it were a large two-dimensional array of data.
See section 2 of http://www.chilton-computing.org.uk/ccd/supercomputers/p005.htm for an 1988 paper by the head of the Cray XMP design team.
There was a downside to this, in that the performance of the first Cray C compilers (and hence the first implementation of the Unix-like Cray operating system UNICOS) was abysmal, since the hardware had no native character-at-a-time instructions, and there was little computer science theory available to attempt to vectorize idiomatic "C-style" loops with a relatively unstructured combination of pointer manipulation and logical tests, compared with Fortran's more rigidly structured DO loops.
add a comment |
Arguably, the relatively simple logical structure of DO loops in Fortran motivated the development of vector hardware on the early Cray and Cyber supercomputers. There may be some "chicken and egg" between hardware and software development though, since CDC Fortran included array slicing operations to encourage programmers to write "logic-free" loops long before that syntax became standardized in Fortran 90.
Certainly the Cray XMP hardware enhancements compared with the Cray 1, such as improved "chaining" (i.e. overlapping in time) of vector operations, vector mask instructions, and gather/scatter vector addressing, were aimed at improving the performance of typical code written in "idiomatic" Fortran.
The need to find a way to overcome the I/O bottlenecks caused by faster computation, without the prohibitive expense of large fast memory, led to the development of the early Cray SSD storage devices as an intermediate level between main memory conventional disk and tape storage devices. Fortran I/O statements made it easy to read and write a random-access file as if it were a large two-dimensional array of data.
See section 2 of http://www.chilton-computing.org.uk/ccd/supercomputers/p005.htm for an 1988 paper by the head of the Cray XMP design team.
There was a downside to this, in that the performance of the first Cray C compilers (and hence the first implementation of the Unix-like Cray operating system UNICOS) was abysmal, since the hardware had no native character-at-a-time instructions, and there was little computer science theory available to attempt to vectorize idiomatic "C-style" loops with a relatively unstructured combination of pointer manipulation and logical tests, compared with Fortran's more rigidly structured DO loops.
Arguably, the relatively simple logical structure of DO loops in Fortran motivated the development of vector hardware on the early Cray and Cyber supercomputers. There may be some "chicken and egg" between hardware and software development though, since CDC Fortran included array slicing operations to encourage programmers to write "logic-free" loops long before that syntax became standardized in Fortran 90.
Certainly the Cray XMP hardware enhancements compared with the Cray 1, such as improved "chaining" (i.e. overlapping in time) of vector operations, vector mask instructions, and gather/scatter vector addressing, were aimed at improving the performance of typical code written in "idiomatic" Fortran.
The need to find a way to overcome the I/O bottlenecks caused by faster computation, without the prohibitive expense of large fast memory, led to the development of the early Cray SSD storage devices as an intermediate level between main memory conventional disk and tape storage devices. Fortran I/O statements made it easy to read and write a random-access file as if it were a large two-dimensional array of data.
See section 2 of http://www.chilton-computing.org.uk/ccd/supercomputers/p005.htm for an 1988 paper by the head of the Cray XMP design team.
There was a downside to this, in that the performance of the first Cray C compilers (and hence the first implementation of the Unix-like Cray operating system UNICOS) was abysmal, since the hardware had no native character-at-a-time instructions, and there was little computer science theory available to attempt to vectorize idiomatic "C-style" loops with a relatively unstructured combination of pointer manipulation and logical tests, compared with Fortran's more rigidly structured DO loops.
edited 3 hours ago
answered 3 hours ago
alephzeroalephzero
1,6181613
1,6181613
add a comment |
add a comment |
The first page of the Intel 8086 data sheet lists the processor's features, which include
- Architecture Designed for Powerful Assembly Language and Efficient High Level Languages
In particular, C and other high-level languages use the stack for arguments and local variables. The 8086 has both a stack pointer (SP) and a frame pointer (BP) which address memory using the stack segment (SS) rather than other segments (CS, DS, ES).
The datasheet for the 8087 co-processor has the following section:
PROGRAMMING LANGUAGE SUPPORT
Programs for the 8087 can be written in Intel's high-level languages for 8086/8088 and 80186/80188 systems; ASM-86 (the 8086, 8088 assembly language), PL/M-86, FORTRAN-86, and PASCAL-86.
The 80286 added several instructions to the architecture to aid high-level languages. PUSHA
, POPA
, ENTER
, and LEAVE
help with subroutine calls. The BOUND
instruction was useful for array bounds checking and switch
-style control statements. Other instructions unrelated to high-level languages were added as well.
The 80386 added bitfield instructions, which are used in C.
The Motorola MC68000 Microprocessor User's Manual states:
2.2.2 Structured Modular Programming
[...]
The availability of advanced, structured assemblers and block-structured high-level languages such as Pascal simplifies modular programming. Such concepts are virtually useless, however, unless parameters are easily transferred between and within software modules that operate on a re-entrant and recursive basis.
[...]
The MC68000 provides architectural features that allow efficient re-entrant modular programming. Two complementary instructions, link and allocate (LINK
) and unlink (UNLK
), reduce subroutine call overhead by manipulating linked lists of data areas on the stack. The move multiple register instruction (MOVEM
) also reduces subroutine call programming overhead.
[...]
Other instructions that support modern structured programming techniques are push effective address (PEA
), load effective address (LEA
), return and restore (RTR
), return from exception (RTE
), jump to subroutine (JSR
), branch to subroutine (BSR
), and return from subroutine (RTS
).
The 68020 added bitfield instructions, which are used in C.
Whereas the above processors added instructions to support programming languages, Reduced Instruction-Set Computers (RISC) took the opposite approach. By analyzing which instructions compilers actually used, they were able to discard many complex instructions that weren't being used. This allowed the architecture to be simplified, shorten the instruction cycle length, and reduce instructions to one cycle, speeding up processors significantly.
add a comment |
The first page of the Intel 8086 data sheet lists the processor's features, which include
- Architecture Designed for Powerful Assembly Language and Efficient High Level Languages
In particular, C and other high-level languages use the stack for arguments and local variables. The 8086 has both a stack pointer (SP) and a frame pointer (BP) which address memory using the stack segment (SS) rather than other segments (CS, DS, ES).
The datasheet for the 8087 co-processor has the following section:
PROGRAMMING LANGUAGE SUPPORT
Programs for the 8087 can be written in Intel's high-level languages for 8086/8088 and 80186/80188 systems; ASM-86 (the 8086, 8088 assembly language), PL/M-86, FORTRAN-86, and PASCAL-86.
The 80286 added several instructions to the architecture to aid high-level languages. PUSHA
, POPA
, ENTER
, and LEAVE
help with subroutine calls. The BOUND
instruction was useful for array bounds checking and switch
-style control statements. Other instructions unrelated to high-level languages were added as well.
The 80386 added bitfield instructions, which are used in C.
The Motorola MC68000 Microprocessor User's Manual states:
2.2.2 Structured Modular Programming
[...]
The availability of advanced, structured assemblers and block-structured high-level languages such as Pascal simplifies modular programming. Such concepts are virtually useless, however, unless parameters are easily transferred between and within software modules that operate on a re-entrant and recursive basis.
[...]
The MC68000 provides architectural features that allow efficient re-entrant modular programming. Two complementary instructions, link and allocate (LINK
) and unlink (UNLK
), reduce subroutine call overhead by manipulating linked lists of data areas on the stack. The move multiple register instruction (MOVEM
) also reduces subroutine call programming overhead.
[...]
Other instructions that support modern structured programming techniques are push effective address (PEA
), load effective address (LEA
), return and restore (RTR
), return from exception (RTE
), jump to subroutine (JSR
), branch to subroutine (BSR
), and return from subroutine (RTS
).
The 68020 added bitfield instructions, which are used in C.
Whereas the above processors added instructions to support programming languages, Reduced Instruction-Set Computers (RISC) took the opposite approach. By analyzing which instructions compilers actually used, they were able to discard many complex instructions that weren't being used. This allowed the architecture to be simplified, shorten the instruction cycle length, and reduce instructions to one cycle, speeding up processors significantly.
add a comment |
The first page of the Intel 8086 data sheet lists the processor's features, which include
- Architecture Designed for Powerful Assembly Language and Efficient High Level Languages
In particular, C and other high-level languages use the stack for arguments and local variables. The 8086 has both a stack pointer (SP) and a frame pointer (BP) which address memory using the stack segment (SS) rather than other segments (CS, DS, ES).
The datasheet for the 8087 co-processor has the following section:
PROGRAMMING LANGUAGE SUPPORT
Programs for the 8087 can be written in Intel's high-level languages for 8086/8088 and 80186/80188 systems; ASM-86 (the 8086, 8088 assembly language), PL/M-86, FORTRAN-86, and PASCAL-86.
The 80286 added several instructions to the architecture to aid high-level languages. PUSHA
, POPA
, ENTER
, and LEAVE
help with subroutine calls. The BOUND
instruction was useful for array bounds checking and switch
-style control statements. Other instructions unrelated to high-level languages were added as well.
The 80386 added bitfield instructions, which are used in C.
The Motorola MC68000 Microprocessor User's Manual states:
2.2.2 Structured Modular Programming
[...]
The availability of advanced, structured assemblers and block-structured high-level languages such as Pascal simplifies modular programming. Such concepts are virtually useless, however, unless parameters are easily transferred between and within software modules that operate on a re-entrant and recursive basis.
[...]
The MC68000 provides architectural features that allow efficient re-entrant modular programming. Two complementary instructions, link and allocate (LINK
) and unlink (UNLK
), reduce subroutine call overhead by manipulating linked lists of data areas on the stack. The move multiple register instruction (MOVEM
) also reduces subroutine call programming overhead.
[...]
Other instructions that support modern structured programming techniques are push effective address (PEA
), load effective address (LEA
), return and restore (RTR
), return from exception (RTE
), jump to subroutine (JSR
), branch to subroutine (BSR
), and return from subroutine (RTS
).
The 68020 added bitfield instructions, which are used in C.
Whereas the above processors added instructions to support programming languages, Reduced Instruction-Set Computers (RISC) took the opposite approach. By analyzing which instructions compilers actually used, they were able to discard many complex instructions that weren't being used. This allowed the architecture to be simplified, shorten the instruction cycle length, and reduce instructions to one cycle, speeding up processors significantly.
The first page of the Intel 8086 data sheet lists the processor's features, which include
- Architecture Designed for Powerful Assembly Language and Efficient High Level Languages
In particular, C and other high-level languages use the stack for arguments and local variables. The 8086 has both a stack pointer (SP) and a frame pointer (BP) which address memory using the stack segment (SS) rather than other segments (CS, DS, ES).
The datasheet for the 8087 co-processor has the following section:
PROGRAMMING LANGUAGE SUPPORT
Programs for the 8087 can be written in Intel's high-level languages for 8086/8088 and 80186/80188 systems; ASM-86 (the 8086, 8088 assembly language), PL/M-86, FORTRAN-86, and PASCAL-86.
The 80286 added several instructions to the architecture to aid high-level languages. PUSHA
, POPA
, ENTER
, and LEAVE
help with subroutine calls. The BOUND
instruction was useful for array bounds checking and switch
-style control statements. Other instructions unrelated to high-level languages were added as well.
The 80386 added bitfield instructions, which are used in C.
The Motorola MC68000 Microprocessor User's Manual states:
2.2.2 Structured Modular Programming
[...]
The availability of advanced, structured assemblers and block-structured high-level languages such as Pascal simplifies modular programming. Such concepts are virtually useless, however, unless parameters are easily transferred between and within software modules that operate on a re-entrant and recursive basis.
[...]
The MC68000 provides architectural features that allow efficient re-entrant modular programming. Two complementary instructions, link and allocate (LINK
) and unlink (UNLK
), reduce subroutine call overhead by manipulating linked lists of data areas on the stack. The move multiple register instruction (MOVEM
) also reduces subroutine call programming overhead.
[...]
Other instructions that support modern structured programming techniques are push effective address (PEA
), load effective address (LEA
), return and restore (RTR
), return from exception (RTE
), jump to subroutine (JSR
), branch to subroutine (BSR
), and return from subroutine (RTS
).
The 68020 added bitfield instructions, which are used in C.
Whereas the above processors added instructions to support programming languages, Reduced Instruction-Set Computers (RISC) took the opposite approach. By analyzing which instructions compilers actually used, they were able to discard many complex instructions that weren't being used. This allowed the architecture to be simplified, shorten the instruction cycle length, and reduce instructions to one cycle, speeding up processors significantly.
answered 28 mins ago
Dr SheldonDr Sheldon
1,0111623
1,0111623
add a comment |
add a comment |
Nathan is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Nathan is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Nathan is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Nathan is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Thanks for contributing an answer to Retrocomputing Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fretrocomputing.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f8869%2fhave-programming-languages-driven-hardware-development%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Welcome to Retrocomputing. Nice question!
– Dr Sheldon
3 hours ago
Similar question is also true for operating systems: inter process protection & security, paging & virtual memory, fast context switching, etc..
– Erik Eidt
3 hours ago
1
As a cautionary tale we should perhaps mention the iAPX 432
– another-dave
2 hours ago
I'm pretty sure that many of the RISC processors were designed specifically to be good targets for compilers; I'm seeking a source.
– Tommy
1 hour ago
@Tommy RISC CPUs are interesting case. They were designed in era where it was obvious that they'd be almost exclusively running compiled code, so were designed with compilers in mind. On the other hand, many RISC CPUs were designed with certain features and limitations that required compilers implement things they didn't have to previously. For example, branch delay slots and pipelining required that the compiler to reorder instructions in order to generate the most efficient code. (In the end it proved CPUs can do a better job of reordering instructions than compilers.)
– Ross Ridge
1 hour ago