|
|
|
| Authored by: BitOBear on Sunday, October 14 2012 @ 11:32 PM EDT |
I understand. (And I have taught at the university level, though not as a full
professor, but as more than a TA.). And I have experienced a lot of really bad
textbooks both as a student and an employee of a University. And having gotten
past the appeals to authority...
I know you used it as a passable citation. And as a citation it does support the
model you presented.
I described how and why I didn't like the citation. It is "PC" (e.g.
IBM PC) specific to its description. For instance the citation of the value
"4" as the amount added to the instruction pointer is not a universal
truth since it assumes the instruction width is four bytes long. This isn't
anything like a universal truth.
Many CPUs (including _all_ RISC processors) don't have a "decode" step
at all.
Some CPUs, including all the "modern" (pentum and later) PCs have
variable sized instructions and so on.
Etc.
As a legal test then, once the lawyers start attacking the six steps of the
model they are destroying the usefulness of the paper.
Care must be taken.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
