Re: [jamboost] Re: <architecture> and <instruction-set>

From: Rene Rivera (grafik.list_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-10-20 11:20:43

David Abrahams wrote:
> Reece Dunn <msclrhd_at_[hidden]> writes:
>>How about:
>>
>><architecture> specifies the general CPU type being used. That is, what
>>architectural design is being used on the chip. For example, x86 specifies the
>>Intel X86 based CPUs such as Pentium 4.
>>
>><instruction-set> specifies what CPU/assembler instructions are available for
>>the given architecture. For example, using the instructions available with the
>>AMD Athalon CPU.
> 
> So far, I see no advantage in distinguishing these. What's the point
> of <architecture>, anyway?

Link compatibility. For example an x86/i486 compiled object would be 
compatible with an x86/athlon. Perhaps someone is wants the Athlon 
instructions for one specific file.

> Isn't that completely determined by the
> instruction-set chosen?

Sure, but we would have to encode someplace what instruction sets are 
compatible with each other.

> <facetious>
> If you specify <architecture>x86 and no <instruction-set> does it
> assume you're on an 8086?

<serious>
It would assume whatever the minimum is for that architecture. Now a 
days compilers use i386.
</serious>

> </facetious>

-- 
-- Grafik - Don't Assume Anything
-- Redshift Software, Inc. - http://redshift-software.com
-- rrivera/acm.org - grafik/redshift-software.com
-- 102708583/icq - grafikrobot/aim - Grafik/jabber.org