Hope for MIPS, From Toshiba 166
CDWert writes: "EE Times is reporting MIPS is teaming up with Toshiba, to develop their next generation 64 bit proccesor. After all the Itanium Speak and X86-64 talk going on here and the premature predictions of MIPS demise, through their inability to fund the next round I thought this would be refresing to MIPS fans." According to the article though, there will be no product until at least a year from now.
MIPS compilers (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:MIPS compilers (Score:1)
Most interesting thing is... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Most interesting thing is... (Score:2)
Re:Most interesting thing is... (Score:2)
Re:Most interesting thing is... (Score:1)
Re:Most interesting thing is... (Score:1)
And very few people needed more than 640k of memory.
Only if.. (Score:1)
Broadcom/SiByte (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Broadcom/SiByte (Score:2)
Broadcom also supports Hard-Hat Linux on this chip.
-Aaron
Re:Broadcom/SiByte (Score:2)
I'm hoping in a year or two this well be cheap enough that someone will pick it up and make a cool little embedded fanless computer with a hard drive and 2 GigE macs. It would make a really sweet little embedded linux webserver/NAT router/NFS server/whatever. All with SMP at a nice little clip! It wouldn't be as fast as a high-end PC, but it wouldn't need to be.
With regards to this article, I don't think it's big news. MIPS is very much alive and well, and not going anywhere. It's got the second-cleanest architecture definition around (behind Alpha, IMHO), and is much easier to implement in high performance incarnations than ARM. There's a good reason no one has done a superscalar ARM...the conditional execution that's so cool in some respects makes going superscalar (and, eventually, out of order) a real pain...
Re:Broadcom/SiByte (Score:2, Informative)
There's no showstopper, but there are two fundamental problems.
The first is the setup of the conditionals. Conditional flags are kept in a special register which is then checked by all successive instructions. This makes the interlocking on going superscalar significantly more complicated, whereas on MIPS or Alpha conditionals use GPRS. This means on MIPS or Alpha you can use register renaming in a generic, clean way and it works for going out of order. It also makes it easier for the compiler to generate code which is parallelizable...if you have to do multiple checks and conditionals, on ARM you are forced to serialize to some extent.
The second major problem is the existance of the stack-helping instructions on ARM. These instructions are used to save and load multiple registers, and just don't fit nicely into a superscalar context (much less an OOO one). In typical current implementations (such as StrongARM) these instructions just stall the pipe until completed. This isn't a huge deal for single-issue inorder machines, and actually works quite well. But it doesn't map well to higher-performance implementation techniques.
Like I said, these aren't showstoppers. The ARM architecture has significantly less in the way of high-performance impediments than, say, x86, and look at what's being done with that behemoth.
In the embedded world, though, there's typically a lot less architecture loyalty; you use whatever architecture gets the job done, be it MIPS/PPC/x86/ARM/whatever. The current field of MIPS implementations is looking pretty healthy, and I think the architecture is going to be around for a while...
Re:SGI/IRIX? (Score:1)
Re:SGI/IRIX? (Score:1)
I believe that SGI's flirtation with the Intel chip really put them down for a while. They were even releasing SGI machines with NT installed. Why would anyone want to buy an expensive NT machine when a PC could handle the workload?
I really like IRIX and think that it is a good OS. If they want to save money, then make the switch to Linux. I think that the MIPS chip is going to be around for a while, in handheld devices and others, but there processor for servers/workstations is quite powerful as well.
no product for a year? MIPS is dead afterall! (Score:1, Flamebait)
Timothy, why are you such an idiot?
They announce a new CPU and all you can say is that it won't arrive this year? no shit sherlock. These things take just a little time and effort (and money) to produce.
Re:no product for a year? MIPS is dead afterall! (Score:2, Offtopic)
Never been in business, have you?
I've worked for a few start-ups, including one that has lasted for almost four years now. In the early stages, a company isn't fueled by sales, usually because there isn't really anything to sell yet. In the early stages, a company is fueled by investment and good press.
The only way to keep investors interested in your company, so they'll keep giving the money you use to keep the lights on and pay your people, is to keep the buzz coming. Investors-- an I'm not talking about VCs here-- want to invest in companies that have a lot of potential in the marketplace, and you generate that potential through press releases, demos, and (sometimes) unsubstantiated announcements.
It's not vaporware at that stage; vaporware is a product that purports to be ready, but isn't.
Re:no product for a year? MIPS is dead afterall! (Score:1, Offtopic)
I guess you've never been a shareholder, then. Do you realize that the shareholders actually own the company? So if there is more than one shareholder (other than you) then technically it isn't exclusively "YOUR" business. Thus even if you're Bill Gates, unless you hold the majority shares, if nobody likes you, the next shareholder vote is going to land your on your arrogant ass.
With that aside, I'm sure there is room for discussion on why the shareholders might want to kick you out. Perhaps you aren't making any money for the company (in other words running the company into the ground while still happily collecting a paycheck), or perhaps you make decisions without getting educated opinions first.
Remember, the shareholders own your job.
Re:Investors have too much money (Score:1)
Re:no product for a year? MIPS is dead afterall! (Score:1, Redundant)
Re:no product for a year? MIPS is dead afterall! (Score:2)
check out the post numbers. Mine was first, everyone else came after me. They should be marked redundant, not me.
Re:no product for a year? MIPS is dead afterall! (Score:2)
People like you just don't seem to get it. Producing quality products and all that other great stuff is a goal. You can't accomplish your goals if you're not in business. No investment means no money which means no products, quality or otherwise.
If you don't have a "must please the shareholders" attitude at all times, you won't be in business long. I know. I've been there. I've blown it, learned my lesson, and tried again.
Trying to judge the decisions a business makes without understanding their context is ultimately futile. "Announcing products before they're ready is deceitful, and wrong! Doing it makes you unethical!"
How about this: my company employs about 30 people. If I run this thing into the ground because I was unwilling to issue an optomistic-sounding press release to keep my investors happy, all 30 of those people will be out of work. I will be directly harming thirty people that I care about very much. How ethical is that?
Re:no product for a year? MIPS is dead afterall! (Score:2, Insightful)
To have a successful microprocessor launch you pretty much need a year so third party vendors can get up to steam on their products(compilers, motherboards, chipsets, etc.). You also want to get some end user projects rolling, with alpha chips, so you can brag about design wins when you do start shipping in volume.
Of course this is all in addition to marketing and stock market reasons for early announcements.
Never thought ..... (Score:3, Interesting)
One of the coolest parts, I thought it will be a 0.10 micron process, is anyone else using this small of a process yet ?
Is there hope for SGI and MIPS or has SGI decided against it in total ?
Re:Never thought ..... (Score:1)
Not such a big deal (Score:3, Informative)
Also, the purchasers of commodity embedded processors tend to be slow to change, so MIPS/Toshiba will have to make a compelling case to do so.
Re:1 GHz embedded processors are ridiculous (Score:1)
Re:1 GHz embedded processors are ridiculous (Score:1)
NetBSD is one of the most solid and stable Free Software projects out there.
It's so stable that it's almost boring.
Except it's so damned interesting that they can fit all those architectures into a single tight source tree.
Re:1 GHz embedded processors are ridiculous (Score:3, Informative)
Embedded systems are getting quite fancy nowadays; it was claimed in "Embedded Systems Programming," January 2002, that cell phones have 10^6 lines of C or C++. They need the horsepower.
For example, it might be more cost-effective to implement signal processing in a fast microcontroller, than to have a DSP chip and a general-purpose microcontroller.
Re: Such a big deal (Score:1)
But now, they will be in embedded devices. So the chip is the same but mostly everyone will be able to take advantage of it's power for a few bucks. I don't know exactly what devices, but they can be cameras, video recorders, pims, portable mp3 player, miniPCs, smart reconfigurable routers, etc.
Onliner: same design, but affordable for the masses (this is my guess)
Re: Such a big deal (Score:2, Informative)
time. I was using an IDT 3051 (R3000) core in
an X-window terminal 10 years ago. They have
been in laser printers, CISCO networking boxes,
video games, X terminals and other high-end
embedded gear for a while...
MIPS for LINUX (Score:2, Informative)
It will revolutionalize the embedded sector quite a bit.
For anyone interested in learning more about MIPS and Linux (there is a port, BTW)... Check out this HOWTO link [lena.fnet.fr]
The small footprint of MIPS chips makes Linux/MIPS suitable for many embedded systems.
Re:MIPS for LINUX (Score:3)
Spim homepage [wisc.edu]
Spim is a MIPS assembly simulator for windows and linux. I am currently using it for a programming class at my University.
Embedded... (Score:3, Interesting)
If we're getting by pretty well on 32-bit chips, where's the market for 64-bit chips? High speed routers?
-cyc
Re:Embedded... (Score:1)
Re:Embedded... (Score:2, Insightful)
64-bit AIBO's!!!
But, seriously, I have a hard time seeing why my digital camera or PVR needs a 64-bit processor.
Re:Embedded... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Embedded... (Score:2)
It's a common (ridiculously so, apparently) misconception that 64-bit CPUs are inherently faster than 32-bit CPUs. Not so. In fact, code compiled for a 64-bit chip will be slower than the same code compiled for a 32-bit chip, because you get fewer cache lines in your caches, so you have to go back to main memory more often.
If and when we see the day that 2 GB of addressable memory is not enough for most applications, 64-bit CPUs will be really important. Until then, they're just not that big a deal.
Re:Embedded... (Score:3, Informative)
The number of cache lines you get in your caches isn't necessarily connected with whether your CPU is a 32-bit or 64-bit CPU; cache lines are typically bigger than the word size of the processor, and not necessarily governed by the word size of the processor.
If you have 64-bit pointers or integers, your variables may take a larger fraction of a cache line, though, so that you get more cache misses and have to go back to memory more often.
You won't necessarily have 64-bit pointers just because your CPU is a 64-bit CPU, and you won't even necessarily have most or all integers be 64-bit. Compilers for 64-bit CPUs may still generate 32-bit code - except when you're processing 64-bit integral data types, in which case it may generate 64-bit code for those data items.
Re:Embedded... (Score:2)
Of course, you're right. I wrote "cache lines" when I meant to say "pointers." If your CPU uses 64-bit pointers or 64-bit ints, you get fewer pointers or ints per cache line, which means more misses.
Sorry for the confusion. I should know better than to post and talk on the phone at the same time....
Re:Embedded... (Score:2)
Err, umm, I think the AIBOs have R4000's or R4400's or something such as that in them; they're 64-bit processors. This spec sheet for the AIBO ERS-220 [aibo.com] says it has a "64bit RISC processor".
Re:Embedded... (Score:2)
Some crypto algorithms go a lot faster with a 64bit processor. Of course for a PVR that might not be an advantage for the user.
(For a cellphone, on the other hand...)
Re:Embedded...why not? (Score:2, Insightful)
Also, legacy compatibility is less important in embedded devices than any other market i can think of (and specially consumer PCs).
64-bit market (just a guess...) (Score:1)
In this kind of products it seems nice to have all those 64 bits, even in integers. Anyway, just an idea - there are devices out there beyond routers that are part of an embedded market and may benefit from these extra bits.
Why will this be any better? (Score:1)
Re:Why will this be any better? (Score:3, Interesting)
Your question has to be one of the most confusing Ive ever read, its valid and a good question, the answer is MIPS is far more experienced in RISC architecture than Intel, and second the low cost low power consupion goal from the beggining, they will be using a 0.10 process and any competition is good competition, this processor though is intended for imbedded devices, howd you like a 1ghz risc pda ? Cant really see you squeezing an Itaninum in.
I didnt mean to be terse about your question, It gave me a laugh I had to read it 3 times, kinda like how much wood would a woodchuk chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood....:)
Re:Why will this be any better? (Score:2)
Re:Why will this be any better? (Score:1)
They are all desgined from a different perspective with different goals in mind. I'm sure there are some applications where one will excel over the others.
Re:Why will this be any better? (Score:1)
Re:Why will this be any better? (Score:1)
It is INTEL that is the newcomer here; 64-bit RISC architectures have been around for more than a decade.
Finding the niche to survive (Score:3, Interesting)
ARM's stuff has gained massive ground in the mobile devices and virtually squeezed MIPS (and everyone else) out of that market entirely. The trouble is that MIPS are being squeezed on the upper end of the scale as well by some seriously grunty main CPUs which are starting to adopte the same sort of friendliness to bespoke licensing for incorporation into VLSIs. Such as IBM's PowerPC chips. By way of an example, Sony aren't going with MIPS for the PS3, they're teaming up with IBM.
So where is left for MIPS? Sounds like they're going after SoT type applications which are in need of serious performance, niche that they are. Make something all singing, all dancing with a damn nippy core in there and you hit applications which ARM haven't got the performance for and PPC type chips don't have the power considerations and SoT/integration levels for. Good luck to them.
Re:Finding the niche to survive (Score:1)
Re:Finding the niche to survive (Score:1)
Embedded? (Score:2)
MIPS is beauty in simplicity. (Score:5, Informative)
The entire ISA is minimized so as to accomplish most operations in the fewest clock ticks (duh -- it's RISC). But after dealing with the crappy x86 design, it is so refreshing to deal with a logical and straightforward architecture such as MIPS. No messing with ES or DS pointers, just simple, general purpose registers. And don't get me started on the "extended" register size kludge in x86 (EAX -- what the hell?). MIPS doesn't have such baggage.
I've coded for SPARCs, I coded for Motorola's 68k and 68HC processors. But nothing beats MIPS in terms of power from simplicity.
Re:MIPS is beauty in simplicity. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:MIPS is beauty in simplicity. (Score:2)
Yep, MIPS is a great ISA, although I'd argue Motorola 88k is at least as good. One of the nicest chips I've ever had the pleasure to deal with. Far, far better than the 68k, and x86 isn't even in the same league. Shame they never really caught on outside of DG machines. But then like everything else, the superior technical solutions are rarely the ones that win in the marketplace...
Re:MIPS is beauty in simplicity. (Score:2)
Re:MIPS is beauty in simplicity. (Score:2)
Re:MIPS is beauty in simplicity. (Score:2, Interesting)
I've done a bunch of those too amongst others, and my personal fave for "nicest ISA" is the ARC [arccores.com]. Pretty much the nicest bits of MIPS mixed with the nicest bits of ARM.
Re:MIPS is beauty in simplicity. (Score:1)
Which also has the virtue of being one of the few chips that actually managed to get a SEX instruction past management and into a shipping product...
Re:MIPS is beauty in simplicity. (Score:1)
I'll be glad the MIPS is still around.
Re:MIPS is beauty in simplicity. (Score:2, Informative)
Re:MIPS is beauty in simplicity - NOT (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:MIPS is beauty in simplicity - NOT (Score:2)
Awww, it's not that bad. If the compiler can't schedule an extra instruction in there, it just puts a nop in, and once you get the idea of how it works it's not so hard to mentally swap the instructions. Course it did throw me for a loop when I was coming from x86 asm. "How the f*ck is it doing *that*?"
Granted, it's a performance hack (and since I'm merely a software weenie, I'm not even sure it's useful in the age of speculative execution) but I believe a couple of other RISC architectures share this particular, uh, "feature".
Re:MIPS is beauty in simplicity. (Score:1)
For one, the Alpha architecture was 64 bits to begin with, so the instruction set is a bit cleaner (for example, the shift word right arithmetic instruction on the MIPS is simply not necessary, because both 64 bit and 32 bit shifts can be handled with shift doubleword right arithmetic (Which has two variants, due to the 32-bit roots of the MIPS. The problem is that the shift amount field in the instruction encoding is only 5 bits wide, so it isn't possible to specify an amount greater than 31 bits. The solution is to have a variant which shifts the amount plus 32.)).
The other main differences are that Alpha doesn't have HI/LO registers (i.e. no special registers at all) and doesn't have branch delay slots.
Other than that, they're very similar.
bye
schani
Re:MIPS is beauty in simplicity. (Score:2)
Which ones have integer multiply and divide (with remainder) instructions?
What??? (Score:3, Informative)
</sarcasm>
Seriously, the way some people write about the Itanium, you would think nobody had every created a 64-bits processor before.
Re:What??? (Score:2)
Seriously, the way some people write about the Itanium, you would think nobody had every created a 64-bits processor before.
You do have a point, Itanium is not the first 64 bit processor out there, but I think that the reason that people make a lot of noise is that Itanium is the first 64 bit processor that has a chance of capturing the majority of the PC market. Yes almost everybody has been to 64 bits a long time ago, but none of them have the sheer marketshare that Intel does.
Re:What??? (Score:2)
...for suitable values of "64-bit". The 860 had, as far as I know, only a 32-bit address space, and may also have had only 32-bit integer arithmetic and 32-bit integer registers; the 960 had, in most versions, only a 32-bit address space, although the BiiN and military versions had a larger segmented address space, and I don't remember it having 64-bit integer registers or integer arithmetic, either.
There may be people who believe that 64-bit data paths to memory, for example, make a processor a 64-bit processor. I just don't happen to be one of those people (and will not ever be one - I'm a software guy, and what matters to me is not how many bits it can push into and out of memory at a time, what matters to me is how big the address space is, and, to a lesser degree, whether 64-bit arithmetic has to be synthesized from 32-bit operations).
Won't be Out Anytime Soon (Score:1)
http://www.artilemicro.com/html/products.html
Don't expect to see a TX99 till at least 04 at this rate and by then it will be behind the times just like the TX79.
.
Buzzwords (Score:3, Funny)
Well I think they got all the buzz-word technologies. If they didn't the "and others" should cover it.
ARM (Score:4, Insightful)
-John
Re:ARM (Score:1)
ARM has excellent performance for some applications, but for many embedded systems, using an ARM is simply not an option.
Re:ARM (Score:1)
Let's not forget that a 64-bit MIPS architecture already exists in the form of the MIPS64-5k and MIPS64-20k product lines. This must be some other new 64 architecture.
--Paul
Re:ARM (Score:1)
It wasn't that many years ago that I was salivating over the first SA processor but not being able to afford one.
Availability (Score:1)
So, about 5 years before Itanium actually ships, then?
good news (Score:2)
i didn't consider partnerships, if two or more merely giant corporations share the load of development, then there can still be competition for the truly titanic.
anyway, best of luck to them, and here's hoping there will always be a choice.
MIPS != new, MIPS != SGI, this != news (Score:3, Informative)
MIPS microprocessors are everywhere, and have been for years and years. They're in your TV, your cell phone, your microwave oven. They're in those cool little GPS receivers that everybody wants for Christmas. They're in the PlayStation 2, Replay TV PVRs, and most of Cisco's routers.
Look around your office. There are probably half a dozen MIPS processors within about twenty feet of you right now.
This is nothing new or revolutionary, and it has nothing to do with the MIPS R10K, R12K, and R14K processors that SGI uses in their computers. Everybody calm down.
Re:MIPS != new, MIPS != SGI, this != news (Score:2)
Mod parent up. The key words in the article are "cost- and power-sensitive embedded applications". Cost I would guess would be more like single or double digits of dollars than what we think of as a CPU price. Power is a bit more arguable, as some "non-embedded" systems are starting to care somewhat about power (e.g. laptops), but still. Summary: this may be interesting, but it isn't a competitor for IA64, x86-64, sparc, alpha, etc.
Re:MIPS != new, MIPS != SGI, this != news (Score:2)
Yes, SGI uses MIPS processors.
But the MIPS processors mentioned by this article aren't necessarily the MIPS processors SGI are using. It's not as if there's only one family of 64-bit MIPS processors (heck, it's not as if there's only one family of 64-bit MIPS processors used by SGI - they've used R4000's and R4400's, as well as R10000s and so on).
This is good news (Score:2, Interesting)
Although Linux is ostensibly a competitor to Windows, it has made most of its inroads in the "big iron" market.
Most of the non-Intel processors are in this market (HP-RISC, SPARC, MIPS)-so what we are seeing is Linux, in effect, killing these other processors. High-end production houses are leaving their SGIs for custom build x86 boxes, servers are dropping Sun and IBM for x86 offerings from Dell and Compaq.
As Sun slowly fades into the night (no pun intended) the only non-x86 CPU with any installed base in the high-performance market anymore is the PowerPC, and its fate is closely tied to the shaky Apple, which is struggling to re-invent itself with OS X.
God bless Toshiba! I wonder if Sony would add some R&D into that pot in preparation for the PS3, and maybe we would have another high-performance chip to compete with Intel.
MIPS Patents (Score:2, Informative)
Lexra is a company producing MIPS compatible chips without a MIPS licence. Lexra have been revealing holes in the MIPS patents in the ongoing court case. As Lexra have been succeeding a little too well and MIPS have simply given up and in order to stop Lexra from revealing that the MIPS 32 architecture is not patent able they have given them a MIPS32 licence.
Unfortunately MIPS still have a couple invalid patents to press on people who try to make compatible processors.
This is quite annoying personally as I have recently released a MIPS compatible processor (Yellow Star) and have now received letters from MIPS complaining about everything on the web page and threatening legal action even though I haven't broken their invalid patents.
Re:MIPS Patents (Score:2)
That's standard lawyer scare tactics. There should be a law against it, but how to make such a law and not have it impede lawyers when you really need them to protect a legitimate violation, I'm not sure. Maybe assigning a cost to the threat itself, and if the threatener loses, they have to pay that as well. Of course lawyers would oppose such a law, so don't expect it to happen.
Wonder if this will have an effect on SGI (Score:2)
R20K maybe?
Re:Wonder if this will have an effect on SGI (Score:2, Insightful)
What might really be cool is if IBM acquired SGI and made them their specialized graphics workstation division. This way SGI can stop spinning cycles developing servers and focus on high powered graphics. The thought of an Onyx running on a POWER4 cpu is quite intoxicating.
MIPS would survive on its core (fogive the pun) business of supplying embedded systems (including PS1/PS2/PSn).
Re:Wonder if this will have an effect on SGI (Score:2)
Though I agree IRIX with more CPU umph behind it would only be a good thing.
Academic embrace of MIPS (Score:1)
Re:Academic embrace of MIPS (Score:1)
I don't know how your particular university teaches architecture and assembly language programming, but I'm sure that it tries to teach concepts and methodologies which will outlive the language of instruction.
So relax, even if (heaven forbid) MIPS ceases to be viable, its nephews and nieces will continue to live on, and your education will not suddenly stop being useful.
(I am speaking as someone who teaches MIPS assembly language and architecture at a university, though not one renowned for its computer architecture research, at least in the past 25 years. I quiver in fear at the prospect of ever having to teach first-year students IA-64 VLIW programming.)
timeline (Score:2)
So, if they don't improve anything, they will beat Itanium to market and outperform it.
"computer" - embedded - "computer": ever? (Score:2)
MIPS == dinosaur... for SGI, at least. (Score:2, Interesting)
We recently took an SGI Octane 2 (current SGI state-of-the-art) and an IBM Intellistation with a FireGL3 card for a test drive. The SGI Octane 2 was a 400MHz MIPS R14000 chip, and the IBM a P6 @ 1.7 GHz.
The Intellistation is approximately a third the cost of an Octane 2. It also outperformed it by a factor of 2.5. It outperformed our older Octanes (R12000 @ 300MHz) by a factor of 3.5. Not just CPU (renderman & vmantra) but also interactive OpenGL. Same factor across the boards.
Unless MIPS can pull a serious rabbit out of their ass, they're far, far, far behind INTEL, no matter how you slice it.
Had one eight years ago (Score:2)
Many uses (Score:1)
http://www.ti.com
are the market standard, and there is no reason why MIPS can't carve out a huge niche for themselves.
PS2 (Score:2)
SGI and MIPS (Score:1)
She's coding in MIPS Assembler (Score:1)
Written by Emmanuel Schanzer
To the tune of: Living La Vida Loca, by Ricky Martin
Her code is so efficient
Her programs never crawl
She's on a debugging mission
That girl's code is off the wall
(guitar solo)
This is her occupation:
Make code run fast and light
She brings a strange affliction:
Coding into the night!
She'll make you code, then re-fine.
Mem'ry dancing brings you pain
She'll change reg-ister 29
Her tricks are so insane!
Like crack-rock in the brain!
Shift right then shift back
She's coding in MIPS assembler
She'll push and pop the stack
She's coding in MIPS assembler
She'll branch if greater than
Increment the program counter
Load im-med-i-ate
She's coding in MIPS assembler
Coding in MIPS assembler
Woke up and went to my class
smelling funky and like hell.
Debugged till 6am, its not funny
She's like a process that you can't kill.
She don't believe in easy
Never comments any code
And when you trace a register
Can't tell from where it loads
Not enough addressing modes!
Shift right then shift back
She's coding in MIPS assembler
She'll push and pop the stack
She's coding in MIPS assembler
She'll branch if greater than
Increment the program counter
Load im-med-i-ate
She's coding in MIPS assembler
Coding in MIPS assembler
(guitar solo)
But you will learn to love her:
Take abuse and not complain.
Store registers defensively,
Debugging code for fame,
All high-level stuff is lame!
Shift right then shift back
She's coding in MIPS assembler
She'll push and pop the stack
She's coding in MIPS assembler
She'll branch if greater than
Increment the program counter
Load im-med-i-ate
She's coding in MIPS assembler
Coding in MIPS assembler
Coding in MIPS assembler
Confederate mantra (Score:1, Offtopic)