[comp.arch] Micrprocessor Forum Advance Program

mslater@cup.portal.com (Michael Z Slater) (07/08/90)

                  MICROPROCESSOR FORUM - ADVANCE PROGRAM

     Hyatt Regency Hotel, San Francisco Airport   October 10-11, 1990

                    Sponsored by Microprocessor Report

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Day One: Wednesday, October 11

Keynote

   The Effect of Free Silicon on Microprocessor Design
      Andy Rappaport, The Technology Research Group

General-Purpose Microprocessors

   A High-Performance Superscalar Processor that is Binary-Compatible with
   the 386/486
      Thampy Thomas, Nexgen Microsystems

   The First Microprocessor Designed for Notebook Computers
      Dave Vannier, Intel

   The Lightning Superscalar SPARC Implementation
      Bruce Lightner, Metaflow Technologies

   The Next-Generation 88000-Family Processor
      Keith Diefendorff, Motorola

   A Superscalar Clipper Implementation
      Howard Sachs, Intergraph

   Panel Discussion
      All speakers above

Lunch: The Second Annual Microprocessor Report Awards
      Nick Tredennick, Master of Ceremonies

Embedded Microprocessors

   The 68340: A 68020-Based Controller
      Brad Cohen, Motorola

   32000-Family Microprocessors with Signal Processing Support
      Gideon Intrater, National

   The 29050: Architecture, Implementation, and Performance
      Tim Olson, AMD

   Upward and Downward Mobility in the Next-Generation 960-Family
   Processors
      Steve McGeady, Intel

   A Next-Generation R3000-Based Embedded Control Processor
      Phil Bourekas, IDT

   An 88000 Implementation for Embedded Control
      John Sansing, Motorola

   The Next Generation of Transputers: Microprocessors for Multiprocessing
      Ian Pearson, Inmos

   Panel Discussion
      All speakers above

   Reception

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

DAY TWO: Thursday, October 11

Digital Signal Processors

   The 96002 Floating-Point DSP
      Mike Collins, Motorola

   The 340C40 Floating-Point DSP
      Ray Simar Jr., Texas Instruments

   A Low-Cost Floating-Point DSP for PC/Workstation Multimedia Applications
      Craig Garen, AT&T

Applications

   Multifunction Imaging Peripherals
      Moshe Doron, National

   A RISC-based X-Windows Terminal
      Peter Weyman, Samsung Software America

   Multiprocessor Systems using Intel's Next-Generation i860
      Benny Maytal, Intel

   A Multiprocessor Chip Set for 386/486 Systems
      Dado Banatao, S3

Lunch: The Zen of Change
      Paul Saffo, Institute for the Future

Multichip Modules

   An Overview of Multichip Technologies
      Jay Block, G & B Technical Services

   A High-Performance Multichip SPARC Module
      Bruce McWilliams, nCHIP, Inc.

   Panel Discussion: The Future of MCM
      Speakers above, joined by John Mick (IDT), Clyde Loftal (Raychem),
      John Reche (Polycon), Howard Davidson (Sun)

Architectural Issues for the 1990s

   Superscalar and Superpipelined Microprocessors
      Mike Johnson, AMD

   Dataflow Processors
      Greg Papadopoulos, MIT

   VLIW and Compiler-Directed Parallelism
      Monica Lam, Stanford University

   Panel Discussion: Personal Views on The Next Decade of Microprocessors
      Dave Patterson (UC Berkeley), Greg Papadopoulos (MIT), Norm Jouppi
      (DEC), Monica Lam (Stanford), John Mashey (MIPS), Mike Johnson (AMD),
      Pat Gelsinger (Intel), Keith Diefendorff (Motorola)

=========================================================================

Registration Information

Until August 15, 1990, the early registration price of $645 for
Microprocessor Report subscribers ($795 for non-subscribers) is in effect.
Orders must be prepaid to qualify for this discounted rate.

After August 15, the prices go up $100 to $745 for subscribers and $895 for
non-subscribers.  Multiple registration discounts are available.

Two seminars on "Understanding High-Performance Microprocessors" will be
offered on October 9 in conjunction with the conference. One version is
designed for those without engineering backgrounds, while another is
intended for engineers. The seminars will be presented by Michael Slater,
Editor and Publisher of Microprocessor Report, and by John Wharton and
Brian Case, independent consultants and contributing editors to
Microprocessor Report.

For a complete brochure and registration form, send an email request (with
your U.S. mail address) to deena@cup.portal.com, call (800) 527-0288 or
(707) 823-4004, or fax your request to (707) 823-0504.

 

wallach@motcid.UUCP (Cliff H. Wallach) (07/14/90)

In article <40052@mips.mips.COM> Mashey writes:
>Since this discussion pops up here every 6-9 months, maybe it's worth
>a shot at some generalizations, to put some structure around the
>flood of anecdotal examples and counter-examples. 
>First MY anecdote: I wrote all of the C string library in assembler for
>the R2000 a long while back, because you ALWAYS do that when you do a new
>UNIX.  THEN, after looking at the generated code from the standard C functions,
>we threw out most of the assmebly code, because the compiler was good
>enough that it wasn't worth QAing the assembly code.
      

  Typically there is a learning curve... Has anyone immersed themselves
in R2000 assembly and then written the C string library?
   


>Generalizations: the following factors will encourage one to use
>assembly code (left) or compiled code (right).  I think most of the
>anecdotes so far fit at least one of these.  The interesting questions are:
>1) Are there more good genralizations?
>2) What kind of experiments can be done to quantify these more specifically?
>
>ASSEMBLER			COMPILER
>1. Old, non-optimizing compiler	Modern, global optimizer, at least
>				In scientific world, vectorizer/parallizer
>					if appropriate.
>2. Architecture/language mismatch	Architecture/language well matched
>
>	2a. Architecture weird
>	2b. Language not expressive enough
>
>
>3. One architecture target, forever	Portability
>
>	(as in some embedded)	(as in UNIX commands)
>
>4. Absolute speed requirement	Premium on development cost, maintenance
>
>5. Absolute space requirement	Space costs, but no hard, low limit
>
>6. Programming time is cheap	Programming time is not cheap



 7. A competitive environment

 8. Easier to debug.


Improved algorithms are independent of the language used.  Assembly
language provides a constant improvement over hll.


It is commonly claimed that compiler code is almost as fast as assembler.
It is also common for vendors to claim that this years compiler generates
faster code than last years compiler.



Cliff Wallach
...uunet!motcid!wallach
 
 
  
filler 
                
more filler
                    
and more filler
                          
and still more filler