Jump to content

Talk:Accumulator (computing): Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
No edit summary
Cewbot (talk | contribs)
Bots
7,153,722 edits
m Maintain {{WPBS}} and vital articles: 1 WikiProject template. Create {{WPBS}}. Keep majority rating "Start" in {{WPBS}}. Remove 1 same rating as {{WPBS}} in {{WikiProject Computing}}.
 
(13 intermediate revisions by 11 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=Start|
⚫
{{FOLDOC talk}}
{{WikiProject Computing |hardware=y |hardware-importance=}}
poop
}}
⚫
{{FOLDOC}}

== Massive rework needed ==

This is bad, really bad.

First of all this article suggests an accumulator processors has one accumulator (which [[6502]] did). However numerous examples are contrary to this such as
* [[6809]] has accumulators A and B that could be concatenated to D, [[6308]] had even more
* [[56300]] has again 2 large accumulators of extended width
* [[96000]] also has 2 accumulators that are even wider

With 2 accumulators you need only a single bit in the instruction to indicate what accumulator is to be used. [[68000]] has a lot of data registers, and those are not called accumulators, so the article should state clearly where the limit is. Seems the limit is around 4 (ARM Piccolo)

[[SWEET16]] has one accumulator and 15 other registers, a wealth closer to [[68000]].

Next is the link to [[accumulator-based architecture]] which goes to [[PDP-8]], specifically the section ''Legacy_of_accumulator-based_architectures'' which no longer exists. Is there any reason why this has to be split up?

Also it seems a bit lacking that the [[Multiply-accumulate|multiply-and-accumulate]] is not mentioned.

All in all an article in need of an overhaul. --22:47, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Amended --21:30, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Hopefully such an overhaul will also disambiguate further, since the term "accumulator" in programming applies to a variable in which values are accumulated... [[Special:Contributions/63.249.90.205|63.249.90.205]] ([[User talk:63.249.90.205|talk]]) 00:55, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

== External links modified ==

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to {{plural:1|one external link|1 external links}} on [[Accumulator (computing)]]. Please take a moment to review [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=677760409 my edit]. If necessary, add {{tlx|cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{tlx|nobots|deny{{=}}InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070928031937/http://www.freescale.com/webapp/sps/site/overview.jsp?code=DRMCRHC16OV&srch=1 to http://www.freescale.com/webapp/sps/site/overview.jsp?code=DRMCRHC16OV&srch=1

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the —[[User:Cyberbot II|<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier;">cyberbot II</sup>]]<small><sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS;">[[User talk:Cyberbot II|<span style="color:green;">Talk to my owner</span>]]:Online</sub></small> 10:25, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

== What is "early" ==

[[Accumulator (computing)#Accumulator machines|#Accumulator machines]] says {{tq|Almost all early computers were accumulator machines with only the high-performance "[[supercomputer]]s" having multiple registers.}} However, the [[IBM 7070]]<ref>{{cite manual
| title = Reference Manual IBM 7070 Data Processing System
| date = January 1960
| edition = Second
| id = A22-7003-01
| url = http://bitsavers.org/pdf/ibm/7070/A22-7003-01_7070_Reference_Jan60.pdf
| publisher = IBM
}}
</ref> had three accumulators, the [[UNIVAC 1107]]<ref>{{cite manual
| title = Technical Bulletin Bulletin UNIVAC 1107 Central Computer
| id = UT-2463
| date = November 1961
| url = http://bitsavers.org/pdf/univac/1107/UT-2463_CPU_Nov61.pdf
| publisher = Remington Rand Univac division of Sperry Rand
}}
</ref>{{efn|Sperry Rand called them arithmetic registers or A-registers.}} had 16, the [[Digital Equipment Corporation|DEC]] [[PDP-6]]<ref>{{cite manual
| title = Programmed Data Processor-6 Handbook
| id = F65
| date = August 1964
| url = http://bitsavers.org/pdf/dec/pdp6/F-65_PDP-6_Handbook_Aug64.pdf
| publisher = DEC
}}
</ref>{{efn|Storage locations 0-15 served as both accumulators and index registers.}} had 16 and, of course, the [[IBM System/360]] had 16 general registers. The 1107, PDP-6, S/360 and their successors were popular in the 1960s and 1970s, and that era was dominated by machines with multiple accumulators. So where is the cutoff for "early"? --[[User:Chatul|Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul]] ([[User talk:Chatul|talk]]) 22:54, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
:The [[IBM 702]] apparently had two accumulators, A and B, according to page 17 of [http://www.bitsavers.org/pdf/ibm/702/22-6173-1_702prelim_Feb56.pdf the preliminary 702 reference manual], althoug the 705 had 1. And the [[IBM 1401]] has, err, umm, zero? I haven't looked at other vendors' decimal machines. [[User:Guy Harris|Guy Harris]] ([[User talk:Guy Harris|talk]]) 23:45, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
::{{ping|Guy Harris}}The 705 actually had 16 accumulators, although IBM referred to the smaller ones as Auxiliary Storage Units (ASUs). Of the IBM machines prior to the S/360, only the 702, 705, 7070 and 7080 had multiple accumulators, although there were machines with both an accumulator and a Multiplier-Quotient register, or equivalent.
::It was common for character-oriented machines to be storage-to-storage with no accumulator, as in the 1401/1440/1460/1410/7010 and the RCA 301/3301.
::Other vendors' decimal machines followed the same pattern; either word with single accumulator or character with no accumulator. --[[User:Chatul|Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul]] ([[User talk:Chatul|talk]]) 18:32, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

{{notelist-talk}}

{{reflist-talk}}

Latest revision as of 11:00, 22 January 2024

Massive rework needed

[edit]

This is bad, really bad.

First of all this article suggests an accumulator processors has one accumulator (which 6502 did). However numerous examples are contrary to this such as

  • 6809 has accumulators A and B that could be concatenated to D, 6308 had even more
  • 56300 has again 2 large accumulators of extended width
  • 96000 also has 2 accumulators that are even wider

With 2 accumulators you need only a single bit in the instruction to indicate what accumulator is to be used. 68000 has a lot of data registers, and those are not called accumulators, so the article should state clearly where the limit is. Seems the limit is around 4 (ARM Piccolo)

SWEET16 has one accumulator and 15 other registers, a wealth closer to 68000.

Next is the link to accumulator-based architecture which goes to PDP-8, specifically the section Legacy_of_accumulator-based_architectures which no longer exists. Is there any reason why this has to be split up?

Also it seems a bit lacking that the multiply-and-accumulate is not mentioned.

All in all an article in need of an overhaul. --22:47, 22 February 2009 (UTC) Amended --21:30, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Hopefully such an overhaul will also disambiguate further, since the term "accumulator" in programming applies to a variable in which values are accumulated... 63.249.90.205 (talk) 00:55, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Accumulator (computing). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:25, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What is "early"

[edit]

#Accumulator machines says Almost all early computers were accumulator machines with only the high-performance "supercomputers" having multiple registers. However, the IBM 7070[1] had three accumulators, the UNIVAC 1107[2][a] had 16, the DEC PDP-6[3][b] had 16 and, of course, the IBM System/360 had 16 general registers. The 1107, PDP-6, S/360 and their successors were popular in the 1960s and 1970s, and that era was dominated by machines with multiple accumulators. So where is the cutoff for "early"? --Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 22:54, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The IBM 702 apparently had two accumulators, A and B, according to page 17 of the preliminary 702 reference manual, althoug the 705 had 1. And the IBM 1401 has, err, umm, zero? I haven't looked at other vendors' decimal machines. Guy Harris (talk) 23:45, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Guy Harris:The 705 actually had 16 accumulators, although IBM referred to the smaller ones as Auxiliary Storage Units (ASUs). Of the IBM machines prior to the S/360, only the 702, 705, 7070 and 7080 had multiple accumulators, although there were machines with both an accumulator and a Multiplier-Quotient register, or equivalent.
It was common for character-oriented machines to be storage-to-storage with no accumulator, as in the 1401/1440/1460/1410/7010 and the RCA 301/3301.
Other vendors' decimal machines followed the same pattern; either word with single accumulator or character with no accumulator. --Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 18:32, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

  1. ^ Sperry Rand called them arithmetic registers or A-registers.
  2. ^ Storage locations 0-15 served as both accumulators and index registers.

References

  1. ^ Reference Manual IBM 7070 Data Processing System (PDF) (Second ed.). IBM. January 1960. A22-7003-01.
  2. ^ Technical Bulletin Bulletin UNIVAC 1107 Central Computer (PDF). Remington Rand Univac division of Sperry Rand. November 1961. UT-2463.
  3. ^ Programmed Data Processor-6 Handbook (PDF). DEC. August 1964. F65.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Accumulator_(computing)&oldid=1197909211"