Have programming languages driven hardware development?












3















Programming language development has been influenced by hardware design. One example from this answer mentions how C pointers were, at least in part, influenced by the design of the PDP-11. Has the reverse taken place, where a construct provided by a language drove the development of hardware?



To be clear, I'm wondering about core language constructs, like pointers for example, rather than industry consortiums coming up with something like OpenGL then being implemented in hardware. Perhaps hardware floating-point support?










share|improve this question







New contributor




Nathan is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.





















  • Welcome to Retrocomputing. Nice question!

    – Dr Sheldon
    3 hours ago











  • Similar question is also true for operating systems: inter process protection & security, paging & virtual memory, fast context switching, etc..

    – Erik Eidt
    3 hours ago








  • 1





    As a cautionary tale we should perhaps mention the iAPX 432

    – another-dave
    2 hours ago











  • I'm pretty sure that many of the RISC processors were designed specifically to be good targets for compilers; I'm seeking a source.

    – Tommy
    1 hour ago











  • @Tommy RISC CPUs are interesting case. They were designed in era where it was obvious that they'd be almost exclusively running compiled code, so were designed with compilers in mind. On the other hand, many RISC CPUs were designed with certain features and limitations that required compilers implement things they didn't have to previously. For example, branch delay slots and pipelining required that the compiler to reorder instructions in order to generate the most efficient code. (In the end it proved CPUs can do a better job of reordering instructions than compilers.)

    – Ross Ridge
    1 hour ago
















3















Programming language development has been influenced by hardware design. One example from this answer mentions how C pointers were, at least in part, influenced by the design of the PDP-11. Has the reverse taken place, where a construct provided by a language drove the development of hardware?



To be clear, I'm wondering about core language constructs, like pointers for example, rather than industry consortiums coming up with something like OpenGL then being implemented in hardware. Perhaps hardware floating-point support?










share|improve this question







New contributor




Nathan is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.





















  • Welcome to Retrocomputing. Nice question!

    – Dr Sheldon
    3 hours ago











  • Similar question is also true for operating systems: inter process protection & security, paging & virtual memory, fast context switching, etc..

    – Erik Eidt
    3 hours ago








  • 1





    As a cautionary tale we should perhaps mention the iAPX 432

    – another-dave
    2 hours ago











  • I'm pretty sure that many of the RISC processors were designed specifically to be good targets for compilers; I'm seeking a source.

    – Tommy
    1 hour ago











  • @Tommy RISC CPUs are interesting case. They were designed in era where it was obvious that they'd be almost exclusively running compiled code, so were designed with compilers in mind. On the other hand, many RISC CPUs were designed with certain features and limitations that required compilers implement things they didn't have to previously. For example, branch delay slots and pipelining required that the compiler to reorder instructions in order to generate the most efficient code. (In the end it proved CPUs can do a better job of reordering instructions than compilers.)

    – Ross Ridge
    1 hour ago














3












3








3








Programming language development has been influenced by hardware design. One example from this answer mentions how C pointers were, at least in part, influenced by the design of the PDP-11. Has the reverse taken place, where a construct provided by a language drove the development of hardware?



To be clear, I'm wondering about core language constructs, like pointers for example, rather than industry consortiums coming up with something like OpenGL then being implemented in hardware. Perhaps hardware floating-point support?










share|improve this question







New contributor




Nathan is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.












Programming language development has been influenced by hardware design. One example from this answer mentions how C pointers were, at least in part, influenced by the design of the PDP-11. Has the reverse taken place, where a construct provided by a language drove the development of hardware?



To be clear, I'm wondering about core language constructs, like pointers for example, rather than industry consortiums coming up with something like OpenGL then being implemented in hardware. Perhaps hardware floating-point support?







hardware software c






share|improve this question







New contributor




Nathan is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.











share|improve this question







New contributor




Nathan is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









share|improve this question




share|improve this question






New contributor




Nathan is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









asked 4 hours ago









NathanNathan

161




161




New contributor




Nathan is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.





New contributor





Nathan is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






Nathan is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.













  • Welcome to Retrocomputing. Nice question!

    – Dr Sheldon
    3 hours ago











  • Similar question is also true for operating systems: inter process protection & security, paging & virtual memory, fast context switching, etc..

    – Erik Eidt
    3 hours ago








  • 1





    As a cautionary tale we should perhaps mention the iAPX 432

    – another-dave
    2 hours ago











  • I'm pretty sure that many of the RISC processors were designed specifically to be good targets for compilers; I'm seeking a source.

    – Tommy
    1 hour ago











  • @Tommy RISC CPUs are interesting case. They were designed in era where it was obvious that they'd be almost exclusively running compiled code, so were designed with compilers in mind. On the other hand, many RISC CPUs were designed with certain features and limitations that required compilers implement things they didn't have to previously. For example, branch delay slots and pipelining required that the compiler to reorder instructions in order to generate the most efficient code. (In the end it proved CPUs can do a better job of reordering instructions than compilers.)

    – Ross Ridge
    1 hour ago



















  • Welcome to Retrocomputing. Nice question!

    – Dr Sheldon
    3 hours ago











  • Similar question is also true for operating systems: inter process protection & security, paging & virtual memory, fast context switching, etc..

    – Erik Eidt
    3 hours ago








  • 1





    As a cautionary tale we should perhaps mention the iAPX 432

    – another-dave
    2 hours ago











  • I'm pretty sure that many of the RISC processors were designed specifically to be good targets for compilers; I'm seeking a source.

    – Tommy
    1 hour ago











  • @Tommy RISC CPUs are interesting case. They were designed in era where it was obvious that they'd be almost exclusively running compiled code, so were designed with compilers in mind. On the other hand, many RISC CPUs were designed with certain features and limitations that required compilers implement things they didn't have to previously. For example, branch delay slots and pipelining required that the compiler to reorder instructions in order to generate the most efficient code. (In the end it proved CPUs can do a better job of reordering instructions than compilers.)

    – Ross Ridge
    1 hour ago

















Welcome to Retrocomputing. Nice question!

– Dr Sheldon
3 hours ago





Welcome to Retrocomputing. Nice question!

– Dr Sheldon
3 hours ago













Similar question is also true for operating systems: inter process protection & security, paging & virtual memory, fast context switching, etc..

– Erik Eidt
3 hours ago







Similar question is also true for operating systems: inter process protection & security, paging & virtual memory, fast context switching, etc..

– Erik Eidt
3 hours ago






1




1





As a cautionary tale we should perhaps mention the iAPX 432

– another-dave
2 hours ago





As a cautionary tale we should perhaps mention the iAPX 432

– another-dave
2 hours ago













I'm pretty sure that many of the RISC processors were designed specifically to be good targets for compilers; I'm seeking a source.

– Tommy
1 hour ago





I'm pretty sure that many of the RISC processors were designed specifically to be good targets for compilers; I'm seeking a source.

– Tommy
1 hour ago













@Tommy RISC CPUs are interesting case. They were designed in era where it was obvious that they'd be almost exclusively running compiled code, so were designed with compilers in mind. On the other hand, many RISC CPUs were designed with certain features and limitations that required compilers implement things they didn't have to previously. For example, branch delay slots and pipelining required that the compiler to reorder instructions in order to generate the most efficient code. (In the end it proved CPUs can do a better job of reordering instructions than compilers.)

– Ross Ridge
1 hour ago





@Tommy RISC CPUs are interesting case. They were designed in era where it was obvious that they'd be almost exclusively running compiled code, so were designed with compilers in mind. On the other hand, many RISC CPUs were designed with certain features and limitations that required compilers implement things they didn't have to previously. For example, branch delay slots and pipelining required that the compiler to reorder instructions in order to generate the most efficient code. (In the end it proved CPUs can do a better job of reordering instructions than compilers.)

– Ross Ridge
1 hour ago










5 Answers
5






active

oldest

votes


















1














Simply yes.



And not just a few instructions, but whole CPUs have been developed with languages in mind. Most prominent maybe Intel's 8086. Already the basic CPU was designed to support the way high level languages handle memory management, especially stack allocation and usage. With BP a separate register for stack frames and addressing was added in conjunction with short encodings for stack related addressing to make HLL programs perform. The 80186/286 went further in this direction by adding Enter/Leave instructions for stack frame handling.



While it can be said that the base 8086 was more geared toward languages like Pascal or PL/M (*1,2), later incarnations added many ways to support the now prevalent C primitives - not at least scaling factors for indices.





*1 - Most remarkable here the string functions which make only sense in languages supporting strings as discrete data type.



*2 - Stephen Morse's 8086 primer is still a good read - especially when he talks about the finer details. Similar and quite recommended his 2008 interview about the 8086 creation where he describes his approach as mostly HLL driven.






share|improve this answer































    1














    Yes. Case in point, the VAX. The instruction set design was influenced by the requirements of the compiled languages of the day. For example, the orthogonality of the ISA; the provision of instructions that map to language constructs such as 'case' statements (in the numbered-case sense of Hoare's original formulation, not the labelled-case of C), loop statements, and so on.



    VAX Architecture Ref - see the Introduction.



    I am not claiming the VAX is unique in this respect, just an example I know a little about. As a second example, I'll mention the Burroughs B6500 'display' registers. A display, in 1960s speak, is a mechanism for efficient uplevel references. If your language, such as Algol60, permits declaration of nested procedures to any depth, then arbitrary references to the local variables of different levels of enclosing procedure require special handling. The mechanism used (the 'display') was invented for KDF9 Whetstone Algol by Randell and Russell, and described in their book Algol 60 Implementation. The B6500 incorporates that into hardware:




    The B6500/B7500 contains a network of Display Registers (D0 through
    D31) which are caused to point at the appropriate MSCW (Fig. 5). The
    local variables of all procedures global to the current procedure are
    addressed in the B6500/B7500 relative to the Display Registers.







    share|improve this answer


























    • as well as more registers for local variables, and large, regular address space rather than smaller banks that can be activated one at a time..

      – Erik Eidt
      3 hours ago





















    1














    I recall, back in the 80’s, and referenced in the Wikipedia article, Bellmac 32 CPU, which became the AT&T Western Electric WE32100 CPU was supposedly designed for the C programming language.



    This CPU was used by AT&T in their 3B2 line of Unix systems. There was also a single board VME bus version of it that some third parties used. Zilog also came out with a line of Unix systems using this chip - I think they were a second source for it for AT&T.



    I did a lot of work with these in the 80’s and probably early 90’s. It was pretty much a dog in terms of performance, if I remember.






    share|improve this answer































      0














      Arguably, the relatively simple logical structure of DO loops in Fortran motivated the development of vector hardware on the early Cray and Cyber supercomputers. There may be some "chicken and egg" between hardware and software development though, since CDC Fortran included array slicing operations to encourage programmers to write "logic-free" loops long before that syntax became standardized in Fortran 90.



      Certainly the Cray XMP hardware enhancements compared with the Cray 1, such as improved "chaining" (i.e. overlapping in time) of vector operations, vector mask instructions, and gather/scatter vector addressing, were aimed at improving the performance of typical code written in "idiomatic" Fortran.



      The need to find a way to overcome the I/O bottlenecks caused by faster computation, without the prohibitive expense of large fast memory, led to the development of the early Cray SSD storage devices as an intermediate level between main memory conventional disk and tape storage devices. Fortran I/O statements made it easy to read and write a random-access file as if it were a large two-dimensional array of data.



      See section 2 of http://www.chilton-computing.org.uk/ccd/supercomputers/p005.htm for an 1988 paper by the head of the Cray XMP design team.



      There was a downside to this, in that the performance of the first Cray C compilers (and hence the first implementation of the Unix-like Cray operating system UNICOS) was abysmal, since the hardware had no native character-at-a-time instructions, and there was little computer science theory available to attempt to vectorize idiomatic "C-style" loops with a relatively unstructured combination of pointer manipulation and logical tests, compared with Fortran's more rigidly structured DO loops.






      share|improve this answer

































        0














        The first page of the Intel 8086 data sheet lists the processor's features, which include





        • Architecture Designed for Powerful Assembly Language and Efficient High Level Languages




        In particular, C and other high-level languages use the stack for arguments and local variables. The 8086 has both a stack pointer (SP) and a frame pointer (BP) which address memory using the stack segment (SS) rather than other segments (CS, DS, ES).



        The datasheet for the 8087 co-processor has the following section:




        PROGRAMMING LANGUAGE SUPPORT



        Programs for the 8087 can be written in Intel's high-level languages for 8086/8088 and 80186/80188 systems; ASM-86 (the 8086, 8088 assembly language), PL/M-86, FORTRAN-86, and PASCAL-86.




        The 80286 added several instructions to the architecture to aid high-level languages. PUSHA, POPA, ENTER, and LEAVE help with subroutine calls. The BOUND instruction was useful for array bounds checking and switch-style control statements. Other instructions unrelated to high-level languages were added as well.



        The 80386 added bitfield instructions, which are used in C.





        The Motorola MC68000 Microprocessor User's Manual states:




        2.2.2 Structured Modular Programming



        [...]
        The availability of advanced, structured assemblers and block-structured high-level languages such as Pascal simplifies modular programming. Such concepts are virtually useless, however, unless parameters are easily transferred between and within software modules that operate on a re-entrant and recursive basis.
        [...]
        The MC68000 provides architectural features that allow efficient re-entrant modular programming. Two complementary instructions, link and allocate (LINK) and unlink (UNLK), reduce subroutine call overhead by manipulating linked lists of data areas on the stack. The move multiple register instruction (MOVEM) also reduces subroutine call programming overhead.
        [...]
        Other instructions that support modern structured programming techniques are push effective address (PEA), load effective address (LEA), return and restore (RTR), return from exception (RTE), jump to subroutine (JSR), branch to subroutine (BSR), and return from subroutine (RTS).




        The 68020 added bitfield instructions, which are used in C.





        Whereas the above processors added instructions to support programming languages, Reduced Instruction-Set Computers (RISC) took the opposite approach. By analyzing which instructions compilers actually used, they were able to discard many complex instructions that weren't being used. This allowed the architecture to be simplified, shorten the instruction cycle length, and reduce instructions to one cycle, speeding up processors significantly.






        share|improve this answer























          Your Answer








          StackExchange.ready(function() {
          var channelOptions = {
          tags: "".split(" "),
          id: "648"
          };
          initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

          StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
          // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
          if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
          StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
          createEditor();
          });
          }
          else {
          createEditor();
          }
          });

          function createEditor() {
          StackExchange.prepareEditor({
          heartbeatType: 'answer',
          autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
          convertImagesToLinks: false,
          noModals: true,
          showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
          reputationToPostImages: null,
          bindNavPrevention: true,
          postfix: "",
          imageUploader: {
          brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
          contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
          allowUrls: true
          },
          noCode: true, onDemand: true,
          discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
          ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
          });


          }
          });






          Nathan is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.










          draft saved

          draft discarded


















          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fretrocomputing.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f8869%2fhave-programming-languages-driven-hardware-development%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown

























          5 Answers
          5






          active

          oldest

          votes








          5 Answers
          5






          active

          oldest

          votes









          active

          oldest

          votes






          active

          oldest

          votes









          1














          Simply yes.



          And not just a few instructions, but whole CPUs have been developed with languages in mind. Most prominent maybe Intel's 8086. Already the basic CPU was designed to support the way high level languages handle memory management, especially stack allocation and usage. With BP a separate register for stack frames and addressing was added in conjunction with short encodings for stack related addressing to make HLL programs perform. The 80186/286 went further in this direction by adding Enter/Leave instructions for stack frame handling.



          While it can be said that the base 8086 was more geared toward languages like Pascal or PL/M (*1,2), later incarnations added many ways to support the now prevalent C primitives - not at least scaling factors for indices.





          *1 - Most remarkable here the string functions which make only sense in languages supporting strings as discrete data type.



          *2 - Stephen Morse's 8086 primer is still a good read - especially when he talks about the finer details. Similar and quite recommended his 2008 interview about the 8086 creation where he describes his approach as mostly HLL driven.






          share|improve this answer




























            1














            Simply yes.



            And not just a few instructions, but whole CPUs have been developed with languages in mind. Most prominent maybe Intel's 8086. Already the basic CPU was designed to support the way high level languages handle memory management, especially stack allocation and usage. With BP a separate register for stack frames and addressing was added in conjunction with short encodings for stack related addressing to make HLL programs perform. The 80186/286 went further in this direction by adding Enter/Leave instructions for stack frame handling.



            While it can be said that the base 8086 was more geared toward languages like Pascal or PL/M (*1,2), later incarnations added many ways to support the now prevalent C primitives - not at least scaling factors for indices.





            *1 - Most remarkable here the string functions which make only sense in languages supporting strings as discrete data type.



            *2 - Stephen Morse's 8086 primer is still a good read - especially when he talks about the finer details. Similar and quite recommended his 2008 interview about the 8086 creation where he describes his approach as mostly HLL driven.






            share|improve this answer


























              1












              1








              1







              Simply yes.



              And not just a few instructions, but whole CPUs have been developed with languages in mind. Most prominent maybe Intel's 8086. Already the basic CPU was designed to support the way high level languages handle memory management, especially stack allocation and usage. With BP a separate register for stack frames and addressing was added in conjunction with short encodings for stack related addressing to make HLL programs perform. The 80186/286 went further in this direction by adding Enter/Leave instructions for stack frame handling.



              While it can be said that the base 8086 was more geared toward languages like Pascal or PL/M (*1,2), later incarnations added many ways to support the now prevalent C primitives - not at least scaling factors for indices.





              *1 - Most remarkable here the string functions which make only sense in languages supporting strings as discrete data type.



              *2 - Stephen Morse's 8086 primer is still a good read - especially when he talks about the finer details. Similar and quite recommended his 2008 interview about the 8086 creation where he describes his approach as mostly HLL driven.






              share|improve this answer













              Simply yes.



              And not just a few instructions, but whole CPUs have been developed with languages in mind. Most prominent maybe Intel's 8086. Already the basic CPU was designed to support the way high level languages handle memory management, especially stack allocation and usage. With BP a separate register for stack frames and addressing was added in conjunction with short encodings for stack related addressing to make HLL programs perform. The 80186/286 went further in this direction by adding Enter/Leave instructions for stack frame handling.



              While it can be said that the base 8086 was more geared toward languages like Pascal or PL/M (*1,2), later incarnations added many ways to support the now prevalent C primitives - not at least scaling factors for indices.





              *1 - Most remarkable here the string functions which make only sense in languages supporting strings as discrete data type.



              *2 - Stephen Morse's 8086 primer is still a good read - especially when he talks about the finer details. Similar and quite recommended his 2008 interview about the 8086 creation where he describes his approach as mostly HLL driven.







              share|improve this answer












              share|improve this answer



              share|improve this answer










              answered 2 hours ago









              RaffzahnRaffzahn

              47.9k5108193




              47.9k5108193























                  1














                  Yes. Case in point, the VAX. The instruction set design was influenced by the requirements of the compiled languages of the day. For example, the orthogonality of the ISA; the provision of instructions that map to language constructs such as 'case' statements (in the numbered-case sense of Hoare's original formulation, not the labelled-case of C), loop statements, and so on.



                  VAX Architecture Ref - see the Introduction.



                  I am not claiming the VAX is unique in this respect, just an example I know a little about. As a second example, I'll mention the Burroughs B6500 'display' registers. A display, in 1960s speak, is a mechanism for efficient uplevel references. If your language, such as Algol60, permits declaration of nested procedures to any depth, then arbitrary references to the local variables of different levels of enclosing procedure require special handling. The mechanism used (the 'display') was invented for KDF9 Whetstone Algol by Randell and Russell, and described in their book Algol 60 Implementation. The B6500 incorporates that into hardware:




                  The B6500/B7500 contains a network of Display Registers (D0 through
                  D31) which are caused to point at the appropriate MSCW (Fig. 5). The
                  local variables of all procedures global to the current procedure are
                  addressed in the B6500/B7500 relative to the Display Registers.







                  share|improve this answer


























                  • as well as more registers for local variables, and large, regular address space rather than smaller banks that can be activated one at a time..

                    – Erik Eidt
                    3 hours ago


















                  1














                  Yes. Case in point, the VAX. The instruction set design was influenced by the requirements of the compiled languages of the day. For example, the orthogonality of the ISA; the provision of instructions that map to language constructs such as 'case' statements (in the numbered-case sense of Hoare's original formulation, not the labelled-case of C), loop statements, and so on.



                  VAX Architecture Ref - see the Introduction.



                  I am not claiming the VAX is unique in this respect, just an example I know a little about. As a second example, I'll mention the Burroughs B6500 'display' registers. A display, in 1960s speak, is a mechanism for efficient uplevel references. If your language, such as Algol60, permits declaration of nested procedures to any depth, then arbitrary references to the local variables of different levels of enclosing procedure require special handling. The mechanism used (the 'display') was invented for KDF9 Whetstone Algol by Randell and Russell, and described in their book Algol 60 Implementation. The B6500 incorporates that into hardware:




                  The B6500/B7500 contains a network of Display Registers (D0 through
                  D31) which are caused to point at the appropriate MSCW (Fig. 5). The
                  local variables of all procedures global to the current procedure are
                  addressed in the B6500/B7500 relative to the Display Registers.







                  share|improve this answer


























                  • as well as more registers for local variables, and large, regular address space rather than smaller banks that can be activated one at a time..

                    – Erik Eidt
                    3 hours ago
















                  1












                  1








                  1







                  Yes. Case in point, the VAX. The instruction set design was influenced by the requirements of the compiled languages of the day. For example, the orthogonality of the ISA; the provision of instructions that map to language constructs such as 'case' statements (in the numbered-case sense of Hoare's original formulation, not the labelled-case of C), loop statements, and so on.



                  VAX Architecture Ref - see the Introduction.



                  I am not claiming the VAX is unique in this respect, just an example I know a little about. As a second example, I'll mention the Burroughs B6500 'display' registers. A display, in 1960s speak, is a mechanism for efficient uplevel references. If your language, such as Algol60, permits declaration of nested procedures to any depth, then arbitrary references to the local variables of different levels of enclosing procedure require special handling. The mechanism used (the 'display') was invented for KDF9 Whetstone Algol by Randell and Russell, and described in their book Algol 60 Implementation. The B6500 incorporates that into hardware:




                  The B6500/B7500 contains a network of Display Registers (D0 through
                  D31) which are caused to point at the appropriate MSCW (Fig. 5). The
                  local variables of all procedures global to the current procedure are
                  addressed in the B6500/B7500 relative to the Display Registers.







                  share|improve this answer















                  Yes. Case in point, the VAX. The instruction set design was influenced by the requirements of the compiled languages of the day. For example, the orthogonality of the ISA; the provision of instructions that map to language constructs such as 'case' statements (in the numbered-case sense of Hoare's original formulation, not the labelled-case of C), loop statements, and so on.



                  VAX Architecture Ref - see the Introduction.



                  I am not claiming the VAX is unique in this respect, just an example I know a little about. As a second example, I'll mention the Burroughs B6500 'display' registers. A display, in 1960s speak, is a mechanism for efficient uplevel references. If your language, such as Algol60, permits declaration of nested procedures to any depth, then arbitrary references to the local variables of different levels of enclosing procedure require special handling. The mechanism used (the 'display') was invented for KDF9 Whetstone Algol by Randell and Russell, and described in their book Algol 60 Implementation. The B6500 incorporates that into hardware:




                  The B6500/B7500 contains a network of Display Registers (D0 through
                  D31) which are caused to point at the appropriate MSCW (Fig. 5). The
                  local variables of all procedures global to the current procedure are
                  addressed in the B6500/B7500 relative to the Display Registers.








                  share|improve this answer














                  share|improve this answer



                  share|improve this answer








                  edited 2 hours ago

























                  answered 3 hours ago









                  another-daveanother-dave

                  63718




                  63718













                  • as well as more registers for local variables, and large, regular address space rather than smaller banks that can be activated one at a time..

                    – Erik Eidt
                    3 hours ago





















                  • as well as more registers for local variables, and large, regular address space rather than smaller banks that can be activated one at a time..

                    – Erik Eidt
                    3 hours ago



















                  as well as more registers for local variables, and large, regular address space rather than smaller banks that can be activated one at a time..

                  – Erik Eidt
                  3 hours ago







                  as well as more registers for local variables, and large, regular address space rather than smaller banks that can be activated one at a time..

                  – Erik Eidt
                  3 hours ago













                  1














                  I recall, back in the 80’s, and referenced in the Wikipedia article, Bellmac 32 CPU, which became the AT&T Western Electric WE32100 CPU was supposedly designed for the C programming language.



                  This CPU was used by AT&T in their 3B2 line of Unix systems. There was also a single board VME bus version of it that some third parties used. Zilog also came out with a line of Unix systems using this chip - I think they were a second source for it for AT&T.



                  I did a lot of work with these in the 80’s and probably early 90’s. It was pretty much a dog in terms of performance, if I remember.






                  share|improve this answer




























                    1














                    I recall, back in the 80’s, and referenced in the Wikipedia article, Bellmac 32 CPU, which became the AT&T Western Electric WE32100 CPU was supposedly designed for the C programming language.



                    This CPU was used by AT&T in their 3B2 line of Unix systems. There was also a single board VME bus version of it that some third parties used. Zilog also came out with a line of Unix systems using this chip - I think they were a second source for it for AT&T.



                    I did a lot of work with these in the 80’s and probably early 90’s. It was pretty much a dog in terms of performance, if I remember.






                    share|improve this answer


























                      1












                      1








                      1







                      I recall, back in the 80’s, and referenced in the Wikipedia article, Bellmac 32 CPU, which became the AT&T Western Electric WE32100 CPU was supposedly designed for the C programming language.



                      This CPU was used by AT&T in their 3B2 line of Unix systems. There was also a single board VME bus version of it that some third parties used. Zilog also came out with a line of Unix systems using this chip - I think they were a second source for it for AT&T.



                      I did a lot of work with these in the 80’s and probably early 90’s. It was pretty much a dog in terms of performance, if I remember.






                      share|improve this answer













                      I recall, back in the 80’s, and referenced in the Wikipedia article, Bellmac 32 CPU, which became the AT&T Western Electric WE32100 CPU was supposedly designed for the C programming language.



                      This CPU was used by AT&T in their 3B2 line of Unix systems. There was also a single board VME bus version of it that some third parties used. Zilog also came out with a line of Unix systems using this chip - I think they were a second source for it for AT&T.



                      I did a lot of work with these in the 80’s and probably early 90’s. It was pretty much a dog in terms of performance, if I remember.







                      share|improve this answer












                      share|improve this answer



                      share|improve this answer










                      answered 2 hours ago









                      mannaggiamannaggia

                      1,101157




                      1,101157























                          0














                          Arguably, the relatively simple logical structure of DO loops in Fortran motivated the development of vector hardware on the early Cray and Cyber supercomputers. There may be some "chicken and egg" between hardware and software development though, since CDC Fortran included array slicing operations to encourage programmers to write "logic-free" loops long before that syntax became standardized in Fortran 90.



                          Certainly the Cray XMP hardware enhancements compared with the Cray 1, such as improved "chaining" (i.e. overlapping in time) of vector operations, vector mask instructions, and gather/scatter vector addressing, were aimed at improving the performance of typical code written in "idiomatic" Fortran.



                          The need to find a way to overcome the I/O bottlenecks caused by faster computation, without the prohibitive expense of large fast memory, led to the development of the early Cray SSD storage devices as an intermediate level between main memory conventional disk and tape storage devices. Fortran I/O statements made it easy to read and write a random-access file as if it were a large two-dimensional array of data.



                          See section 2 of http://www.chilton-computing.org.uk/ccd/supercomputers/p005.htm for an 1988 paper by the head of the Cray XMP design team.



                          There was a downside to this, in that the performance of the first Cray C compilers (and hence the first implementation of the Unix-like Cray operating system UNICOS) was abysmal, since the hardware had no native character-at-a-time instructions, and there was little computer science theory available to attempt to vectorize idiomatic "C-style" loops with a relatively unstructured combination of pointer manipulation and logical tests, compared with Fortran's more rigidly structured DO loops.






                          share|improve this answer






























                            0














                            Arguably, the relatively simple logical structure of DO loops in Fortran motivated the development of vector hardware on the early Cray and Cyber supercomputers. There may be some "chicken and egg" between hardware and software development though, since CDC Fortran included array slicing operations to encourage programmers to write "logic-free" loops long before that syntax became standardized in Fortran 90.



                            Certainly the Cray XMP hardware enhancements compared with the Cray 1, such as improved "chaining" (i.e. overlapping in time) of vector operations, vector mask instructions, and gather/scatter vector addressing, were aimed at improving the performance of typical code written in "idiomatic" Fortran.



                            The need to find a way to overcome the I/O bottlenecks caused by faster computation, without the prohibitive expense of large fast memory, led to the development of the early Cray SSD storage devices as an intermediate level between main memory conventional disk and tape storage devices. Fortran I/O statements made it easy to read and write a random-access file as if it were a large two-dimensional array of data.



                            See section 2 of http://www.chilton-computing.org.uk/ccd/supercomputers/p005.htm for an 1988 paper by the head of the Cray XMP design team.



                            There was a downside to this, in that the performance of the first Cray C compilers (and hence the first implementation of the Unix-like Cray operating system UNICOS) was abysmal, since the hardware had no native character-at-a-time instructions, and there was little computer science theory available to attempt to vectorize idiomatic "C-style" loops with a relatively unstructured combination of pointer manipulation and logical tests, compared with Fortran's more rigidly structured DO loops.






                            share|improve this answer




























                              0












                              0








                              0







                              Arguably, the relatively simple logical structure of DO loops in Fortran motivated the development of vector hardware on the early Cray and Cyber supercomputers. There may be some "chicken and egg" between hardware and software development though, since CDC Fortran included array slicing operations to encourage programmers to write "logic-free" loops long before that syntax became standardized in Fortran 90.



                              Certainly the Cray XMP hardware enhancements compared with the Cray 1, such as improved "chaining" (i.e. overlapping in time) of vector operations, vector mask instructions, and gather/scatter vector addressing, were aimed at improving the performance of typical code written in "idiomatic" Fortran.



                              The need to find a way to overcome the I/O bottlenecks caused by faster computation, without the prohibitive expense of large fast memory, led to the development of the early Cray SSD storage devices as an intermediate level between main memory conventional disk and tape storage devices. Fortran I/O statements made it easy to read and write a random-access file as if it were a large two-dimensional array of data.



                              See section 2 of http://www.chilton-computing.org.uk/ccd/supercomputers/p005.htm for an 1988 paper by the head of the Cray XMP design team.



                              There was a downside to this, in that the performance of the first Cray C compilers (and hence the first implementation of the Unix-like Cray operating system UNICOS) was abysmal, since the hardware had no native character-at-a-time instructions, and there was little computer science theory available to attempt to vectorize idiomatic "C-style" loops with a relatively unstructured combination of pointer manipulation and logical tests, compared with Fortran's more rigidly structured DO loops.






                              share|improve this answer















                              Arguably, the relatively simple logical structure of DO loops in Fortran motivated the development of vector hardware on the early Cray and Cyber supercomputers. There may be some "chicken and egg" between hardware and software development though, since CDC Fortran included array slicing operations to encourage programmers to write "logic-free" loops long before that syntax became standardized in Fortran 90.



                              Certainly the Cray XMP hardware enhancements compared with the Cray 1, such as improved "chaining" (i.e. overlapping in time) of vector operations, vector mask instructions, and gather/scatter vector addressing, were aimed at improving the performance of typical code written in "idiomatic" Fortran.



                              The need to find a way to overcome the I/O bottlenecks caused by faster computation, without the prohibitive expense of large fast memory, led to the development of the early Cray SSD storage devices as an intermediate level between main memory conventional disk and tape storage devices. Fortran I/O statements made it easy to read and write a random-access file as if it were a large two-dimensional array of data.



                              See section 2 of http://www.chilton-computing.org.uk/ccd/supercomputers/p005.htm for an 1988 paper by the head of the Cray XMP design team.



                              There was a downside to this, in that the performance of the first Cray C compilers (and hence the first implementation of the Unix-like Cray operating system UNICOS) was abysmal, since the hardware had no native character-at-a-time instructions, and there was little computer science theory available to attempt to vectorize idiomatic "C-style" loops with a relatively unstructured combination of pointer manipulation and logical tests, compared with Fortran's more rigidly structured DO loops.







                              share|improve this answer














                              share|improve this answer



                              share|improve this answer








                              edited 3 hours ago

























                              answered 3 hours ago









                              alephzeroalephzero

                              1,6181613




                              1,6181613























                                  0














                                  The first page of the Intel 8086 data sheet lists the processor's features, which include





                                  • Architecture Designed for Powerful Assembly Language and Efficient High Level Languages




                                  In particular, C and other high-level languages use the stack for arguments and local variables. The 8086 has both a stack pointer (SP) and a frame pointer (BP) which address memory using the stack segment (SS) rather than other segments (CS, DS, ES).



                                  The datasheet for the 8087 co-processor has the following section:




                                  PROGRAMMING LANGUAGE SUPPORT



                                  Programs for the 8087 can be written in Intel's high-level languages for 8086/8088 and 80186/80188 systems; ASM-86 (the 8086, 8088 assembly language), PL/M-86, FORTRAN-86, and PASCAL-86.




                                  The 80286 added several instructions to the architecture to aid high-level languages. PUSHA, POPA, ENTER, and LEAVE help with subroutine calls. The BOUND instruction was useful for array bounds checking and switch-style control statements. Other instructions unrelated to high-level languages were added as well.



                                  The 80386 added bitfield instructions, which are used in C.





                                  The Motorola MC68000 Microprocessor User's Manual states:




                                  2.2.2 Structured Modular Programming



                                  [...]
                                  The availability of advanced, structured assemblers and block-structured high-level languages such as Pascal simplifies modular programming. Such concepts are virtually useless, however, unless parameters are easily transferred between and within software modules that operate on a re-entrant and recursive basis.
                                  [...]
                                  The MC68000 provides architectural features that allow efficient re-entrant modular programming. Two complementary instructions, link and allocate (LINK) and unlink (UNLK), reduce subroutine call overhead by manipulating linked lists of data areas on the stack. The move multiple register instruction (MOVEM) also reduces subroutine call programming overhead.
                                  [...]
                                  Other instructions that support modern structured programming techniques are push effective address (PEA), load effective address (LEA), return and restore (RTR), return from exception (RTE), jump to subroutine (JSR), branch to subroutine (BSR), and return from subroutine (RTS).




                                  The 68020 added bitfield instructions, which are used in C.





                                  Whereas the above processors added instructions to support programming languages, Reduced Instruction-Set Computers (RISC) took the opposite approach. By analyzing which instructions compilers actually used, they were able to discard many complex instructions that weren't being used. This allowed the architecture to be simplified, shorten the instruction cycle length, and reduce instructions to one cycle, speeding up processors significantly.






                                  share|improve this answer




























                                    0














                                    The first page of the Intel 8086 data sheet lists the processor's features, which include





                                    • Architecture Designed for Powerful Assembly Language and Efficient High Level Languages




                                    In particular, C and other high-level languages use the stack for arguments and local variables. The 8086 has both a stack pointer (SP) and a frame pointer (BP) which address memory using the stack segment (SS) rather than other segments (CS, DS, ES).



                                    The datasheet for the 8087 co-processor has the following section:




                                    PROGRAMMING LANGUAGE SUPPORT



                                    Programs for the 8087 can be written in Intel's high-level languages for 8086/8088 and 80186/80188 systems; ASM-86 (the 8086, 8088 assembly language), PL/M-86, FORTRAN-86, and PASCAL-86.




                                    The 80286 added several instructions to the architecture to aid high-level languages. PUSHA, POPA, ENTER, and LEAVE help with subroutine calls. The BOUND instruction was useful for array bounds checking and switch-style control statements. Other instructions unrelated to high-level languages were added as well.



                                    The 80386 added bitfield instructions, which are used in C.





                                    The Motorola MC68000 Microprocessor User's Manual states:




                                    2.2.2 Structured Modular Programming



                                    [...]
                                    The availability of advanced, structured assemblers and block-structured high-level languages such as Pascal simplifies modular programming. Such concepts are virtually useless, however, unless parameters are easily transferred between and within software modules that operate on a re-entrant and recursive basis.
                                    [...]
                                    The MC68000 provides architectural features that allow efficient re-entrant modular programming. Two complementary instructions, link and allocate (LINK) and unlink (UNLK), reduce subroutine call overhead by manipulating linked lists of data areas on the stack. The move multiple register instruction (MOVEM) also reduces subroutine call programming overhead.
                                    [...]
                                    Other instructions that support modern structured programming techniques are push effective address (PEA), load effective address (LEA), return and restore (RTR), return from exception (RTE), jump to subroutine (JSR), branch to subroutine (BSR), and return from subroutine (RTS).




                                    The 68020 added bitfield instructions, which are used in C.





                                    Whereas the above processors added instructions to support programming languages, Reduced Instruction-Set Computers (RISC) took the opposite approach. By analyzing which instructions compilers actually used, they were able to discard many complex instructions that weren't being used. This allowed the architecture to be simplified, shorten the instruction cycle length, and reduce instructions to one cycle, speeding up processors significantly.






                                    share|improve this answer


























                                      0












                                      0








                                      0







                                      The first page of the Intel 8086 data sheet lists the processor's features, which include





                                      • Architecture Designed for Powerful Assembly Language and Efficient High Level Languages




                                      In particular, C and other high-level languages use the stack for arguments and local variables. The 8086 has both a stack pointer (SP) and a frame pointer (BP) which address memory using the stack segment (SS) rather than other segments (CS, DS, ES).



                                      The datasheet for the 8087 co-processor has the following section:




                                      PROGRAMMING LANGUAGE SUPPORT



                                      Programs for the 8087 can be written in Intel's high-level languages for 8086/8088 and 80186/80188 systems; ASM-86 (the 8086, 8088 assembly language), PL/M-86, FORTRAN-86, and PASCAL-86.




                                      The 80286 added several instructions to the architecture to aid high-level languages. PUSHA, POPA, ENTER, and LEAVE help with subroutine calls. The BOUND instruction was useful for array bounds checking and switch-style control statements. Other instructions unrelated to high-level languages were added as well.



                                      The 80386 added bitfield instructions, which are used in C.





                                      The Motorola MC68000 Microprocessor User's Manual states:




                                      2.2.2 Structured Modular Programming



                                      [...]
                                      The availability of advanced, structured assemblers and block-structured high-level languages such as Pascal simplifies modular programming. Such concepts are virtually useless, however, unless parameters are easily transferred between and within software modules that operate on a re-entrant and recursive basis.
                                      [...]
                                      The MC68000 provides architectural features that allow efficient re-entrant modular programming. Two complementary instructions, link and allocate (LINK) and unlink (UNLK), reduce subroutine call overhead by manipulating linked lists of data areas on the stack. The move multiple register instruction (MOVEM) also reduces subroutine call programming overhead.
                                      [...]
                                      Other instructions that support modern structured programming techniques are push effective address (PEA), load effective address (LEA), return and restore (RTR), return from exception (RTE), jump to subroutine (JSR), branch to subroutine (BSR), and return from subroutine (RTS).




                                      The 68020 added bitfield instructions, which are used in C.





                                      Whereas the above processors added instructions to support programming languages, Reduced Instruction-Set Computers (RISC) took the opposite approach. By analyzing which instructions compilers actually used, they were able to discard many complex instructions that weren't being used. This allowed the architecture to be simplified, shorten the instruction cycle length, and reduce instructions to one cycle, speeding up processors significantly.






                                      share|improve this answer













                                      The first page of the Intel 8086 data sheet lists the processor's features, which include





                                      • Architecture Designed for Powerful Assembly Language and Efficient High Level Languages




                                      In particular, C and other high-level languages use the stack for arguments and local variables. The 8086 has both a stack pointer (SP) and a frame pointer (BP) which address memory using the stack segment (SS) rather than other segments (CS, DS, ES).



                                      The datasheet for the 8087 co-processor has the following section:




                                      PROGRAMMING LANGUAGE SUPPORT



                                      Programs for the 8087 can be written in Intel's high-level languages for 8086/8088 and 80186/80188 systems; ASM-86 (the 8086, 8088 assembly language), PL/M-86, FORTRAN-86, and PASCAL-86.




                                      The 80286 added several instructions to the architecture to aid high-level languages. PUSHA, POPA, ENTER, and LEAVE help with subroutine calls. The BOUND instruction was useful for array bounds checking and switch-style control statements. Other instructions unrelated to high-level languages were added as well.



                                      The 80386 added bitfield instructions, which are used in C.





                                      The Motorola MC68000 Microprocessor User's Manual states:




                                      2.2.2 Structured Modular Programming



                                      [...]
                                      The availability of advanced, structured assemblers and block-structured high-level languages such as Pascal simplifies modular programming. Such concepts are virtually useless, however, unless parameters are easily transferred between and within software modules that operate on a re-entrant and recursive basis.
                                      [...]
                                      The MC68000 provides architectural features that allow efficient re-entrant modular programming. Two complementary instructions, link and allocate (LINK) and unlink (UNLK), reduce subroutine call overhead by manipulating linked lists of data areas on the stack. The move multiple register instruction (MOVEM) also reduces subroutine call programming overhead.
                                      [...]
                                      Other instructions that support modern structured programming techniques are push effective address (PEA), load effective address (LEA), return and restore (RTR), return from exception (RTE), jump to subroutine (JSR), branch to subroutine (BSR), and return from subroutine (RTS).




                                      The 68020 added bitfield instructions, which are used in C.





                                      Whereas the above processors added instructions to support programming languages, Reduced Instruction-Set Computers (RISC) took the opposite approach. By analyzing which instructions compilers actually used, they were able to discard many complex instructions that weren't being used. This allowed the architecture to be simplified, shorten the instruction cycle length, and reduce instructions to one cycle, speeding up processors significantly.







                                      share|improve this answer












                                      share|improve this answer



                                      share|improve this answer










                                      answered 27 mins ago









                                      Dr SheldonDr Sheldon

                                      1,0111623




                                      1,0111623






















                                          Nathan is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.










                                          draft saved

                                          draft discarded


















                                          Nathan is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.













                                          Nathan is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.












                                          Nathan is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
















                                          Thanks for contributing an answer to Retrocomputing Stack Exchange!


                                          • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                                          But avoid



                                          • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                                          • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                                          To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                                          draft saved


                                          draft discarded














                                          StackExchange.ready(
                                          function () {
                                          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fretrocomputing.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f8869%2fhave-programming-languages-driven-hardware-development%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                                          }
                                          );

                                          Post as a guest















                                          Required, but never shown





















































                                          Required, but never shown














                                          Required, but never shown












                                          Required, but never shown







                                          Required, but never shown

































                                          Required, but never shown














                                          Required, but never shown












                                          Required, but never shown







                                          Required, but never shown







                                          Popular posts from this blog

                                          Statuo de Libereco

                                          Tanganjiko

                                          Liste der Baudenkmäler in Enneberg