Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 16 submissions in the queue.
posted by Fnord666 on Thursday October 24 2019, @04:27PM   Printer-friendly
from the an-organization-of-very-special-registers dept.

http://www.righto.com/2019/10/how-special-register-groups-invaded.html

Half a century ago, the puzzling phrase "special register groups" started showing up in definitions of "CPU", and it is still there. In this blog post, I uncover how special register groups went from an obscure feature in the Honeywell 800 mainframe to appearing in the Washington Post.

While researching old computers, I found a strange definition of "Central Processing Unit" that keeps appearing in different sources. From a book reprinted in 2017:1

"Central Processor Unit (CPU)—Part of a computer system which contains the main storage, arithmetic unit and special register groups. It performs arithmetic operations, controls instruction processing and provides timing signals."

At first glance, this definition seems okay, but a few moments thought reveals some problems. Storage is not part of the CPU. But more puzzling, what are special register groups? A CPU has registers, but "special register groups" is not a normal phrase.

It turns out that this definition has been used extensively for over half a century, even though it doesn't make sense, copied and modified from one source to another. Special register groups were a feature in the Honeywell 800 mainframe computer, introduced in 1959. Although this computer is long-forgotten, its impact inexplicably remains in many glossaries. The Honeywell 800 allowed eight programs to run on a single processor, switching between programs after every instruction.3 To support this, each program had a "special register group" in hardware, its own separate group of 32 registers (program counter, general-purpose registers, index registers, etc.).


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 25 2019, @04:13AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 25 2019, @04:13AM (#911496)

    Nope, that is the correct usage, in fact, I didn't see anybody refer to the processor as the CPU until about 15 years ago when shops started to market to people who were technologically illiterate. The term in use was consistently "processor" rather than CPU. The processor being the CPU wouldn't have made any sense until recently when non-processing features were added to the chips. Things like memory controllers, GPUs and the like.

    The correct definition is for it to be the case and everything inside of it. Otherwise, the use of the U in CPU wouldn't make any sense. A processor is not a unit in the way that the term was understood decades ago.