4 ms·
> "This is the whole reason why x86-64 is usable despite having only 16 architectural integer registers [..]" Who'd have thought thirty year ago we'd all be si
by weinzierl 4y ago
> "This is the whole reason why x86-64 is usable despite having only 16 architectural integer registers [..]"
Who'd have thought thirty year ago we'd all be sittin' here talking tens of registers, eh?
In them days we was glad to have two or three.
If we were lucky.
My first computer had 1 (one). One with less bits than fingers on our hands. It was so dear to us we even gave it a name. "Accu" it was called.
If you tell that to the young people today, they won't believe you.
- speed_spread 4y agoSounds as comfortable as living with two teenagers in a house with single bathroom. You have to optimize around it and use clever tricks that shouldn't be documented.
- _joel 4y agoLuxury
- kstrauser 4y agoMy first (usable) computer was a Commodore 64, with 3 registers but a special addressing mode for RAM in the 0x00-0xFF range. It was largely used as 256 bytes of “kinda like a register but not exactly” storage.
- weinzierl 4y agoBrilliant little machine, the good old 64. You are absolutely right about the zeropage (0x00-0xFF) and the three registers. Two of those three were pretty special and limited however. So, I'd say the C64 (and all 6502 or 6510 based systems) had really only one general purpose register.
- Dylan16807 4y agoThe 68k was quite a popular chip, with almost 20 registers and a clear trend towards more, and it came out over 40 years ago.