Re: 680?0, was Re: g++-4.4 failings

To: Kolbjørn Barmen <debian@kolla.no>
Cc: debian-68k@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: 680?0, was Re: g++-4.4 failings
From: fthain@telegraphics.com.au
Date: Wed, 19 May 2010 10:03:23 +1000 (EST)
Message-id: <[🔎] alpine.LNX.2.00.1005190952510.10739@nippy.intranet>
In-reply-to: <[🔎] alpine.LNX.2.01.1005181704050.3046@halbrend.uninett.no>
References: <Pine.BSM.4.64L.1004231933110.22304@herc.mirbsd.org> <alpine.LNX.2.00.1004241054290.4551@nippy.intranet> <Pine.BSM.4.64L.1004241133200.6854@herc.mirbsd.org> <alpine.LNX.2.01.1004251553330.3283@halbrend.uninett.no> <Pine.BSM.4.64L.1004251523320.10398@herc.mirbsd.org> <alpine.LNX.2.01.1004260835150.7843@halbrend.uninett.no> <alpine.OSX.2.00.1004261754030.296@localhost> <[🔎] alpine.LNX.2.01.1005181704050.3046@halbrend.uninett.no>

On Tue, 18 May 2010, Kolbj?rn Barmen wrote:

> However, the speed is not really that impressive yet

That is because they use FPGAs (cheap in small quantities, slow, 
reprogrammable) and not ASICs (cheap in large quantities, fast, not 
reprogrammable). The speed is actually better than the real thing (cycle 
for cycle).

Finn

Reply to:

References:
- Re: 680?0, was Re: g++-4.4 failings
  - From: Kolbjørn Barmen <debian@kolla.no>

Prev by Date: Re: 680?0, was Re: g++-4.4 failings
Next by Date: new coldfire computer
Previous by thread: Re: 680?0, was Re: g++-4.4 failings
Next by thread: new coldfire computer
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread