On 9/6/18, Bakul Shah wrote:
>
> But if all you want to do is just run plan9 why even bother?
>
But that is disingenuous, isn't it? What one wants is Plan 9 as a
model for what may be a family of hardware APIs. It makes sense to
promote massive parallelism, but the API to it should be
On Wed, 05 Sep 2018 07:42:52 -0400 Chris McGee wrote:
>
> It could be, but after having looked briefly at the size of the design for
> RISC-V Rocket and especially BOOM I wonder if it's all overly complicated.
> They even built their own high level hardware language (Chisel) that
> generates
> Take a look at greenarraychips.com and how Chuck Moore tries to
> simplify the whole instead of software or hardware.
>
Thanks, that is a very interesting read on the topic of asynchronous and
highly parallel computing. I'm not sure if the designs for these are very
simple though.
On Wed, Sep 5, 2018 at 4:45 AM Chris McGee wrote:
>
>
>> Wasn't that the whole point of RISC?
>
>
> It could be, but after having looked briefly at the size of the design for
> RISC-V Rocket and especially BOOM I wonder if it's all overly complicated.
> They even built their own high level
On Wed, Sep 5, 2018, at 12:42 PM, Chris McGee wrote:
>
> They even built their own high level hardware language (Chisel) that
> generates Verilog using Scala. Yuck.
>From what I've heard of Verilog and VHDL, this is the sane approach. I only
>have second hand knowledge of these languages, my
> Wasn't that the whole point of RISC?
>
It could be, but after having looked briefly at the size of the design for
RISC-V Rocket and especially BOOM I wonder if it's all overly complicated.
They even built their own high level hardware language (Chisel) that
generates Verilog using Scala. Yuck.
On Tue, Sep 4, 2018, 22:31 Chris McGee, wrote:
>
> I believe that the core of the problem with the C language is that is
>> based upon abstracting the PDP-11 instruction set. CPUs, such as Intel/AMD
>> x64 are vastly more complex so "optimising" C compilers are trying to make
>> something
On Wed, Sep 5, 2018, at 4:25 AM, Ori Bernstein wrote:
>
> > CPUs, such as Intel/AMD x64
> > are vastly more complex so "optimising" C compilers are trying to make
> > something simple take advantage of something far more complex.
>
> Ironically, because of the complexity in the CPUs, many of the
