3 ms·
> Didn't IBM have an ALU design that were more harden again calculation errors? I'm genuinely confused what is meant by this in practice. Like some sort of red
by metaphor 6y ago
> Didn't IBM have an ALU design that were more harden again calculation errors?
I'm genuinely confused what is meant by this in practice. Like some sort of redundant ALU architecture or rad hard encapsulation?
- krallja 6y ago‘kens has an article about IBM qui-binary arithmetic: http://www.righto.com/2015/10/qui-binary-arithmetic-how-1960s-ibm.html http://www.righto.com/2015/10/qui-binary-arithmetic-how-1960... this might be what is referenced?
- xellisx 6y agoThat's what I was thinking about!
- dbcurtis 6y agoIt could mean either. Rad-hard parts are used in satellites. I am not familiar with the current crop of rad-hard parts. I did work as a CPU logic desiger at Amdahl. We had full parity through-checking, so an ALU intermittent logic error would raise a parity exception. Certainly IBM would have had the same, it was standard SOTA reliability logic for the era of mainframes when I was a designer.