microprocessors

I am unable to understand the different starting addresses of Physical Address generated by CS:IP in 8085-86. Is this because of Stack? I think the concept of Stack was present before 8085. Please help out. Thanks. There are 3 reasons I can think of that a particular value could be used for the powerup IP: convention - other processors in the same family/brand use the same location, and they want to give their customers a sense of familiarity compatibility certain areas are restricted or enhanced for certain purposes. The 6502 for example has special faster instructions for accessing the first

What is the size of integer in 8-bit, 16-bit, 32-bit processors/microcontrollers ? I guess it depends on the internal accumulator/register size. But not sure. Thanks I'm only aware of one programming language that defines an integer data type, but it's seldom used for 8 and 16-bit architectures. C is the most widely used language for programming 8-bit, 16-bit, and 32-bit architectures, so I assume you are looking for an answer in the context of C. There are several "integer" data types in C: char , short , int , long , etc..., but I will assume what you really mean is the int data type. The

What'll be the behaviour of the 8086 Microprocessor when the stack is full and even then I push something into it? On the 8086, a PUSH instruction or implicit stack push will decrement the SP register by two and store the appropriate quantity at SS:SP (i.e. 16*SS+SP). If the SP register was $0000, the data will go to SS:$FFFE. If the SP register was $0001, the MSB of the data will go to SS:$0000 and the LSB will go to SS:$FFFF. The processor will not take any special notice of the stack wraparound. While stack wraparound would typically be a bad thing, there are some situations on the 8086

I am studying 8086/8080 microprocessors. The registers used in them have names, RAX RBX RCX RDX and go on until R8 when the registers are named as R8, R9... to R15. I wanted to know Do we also refer to the registers RAX, RBX etc as R1, R2 and so on? Standard practice is for the first 8 registers to keep their historical name. This convention is used in the documentation from Intel and AMD and in most assemblers. The reason for this is that these names are mnemonic for the function of the register. For example rsp sticks out as the stack pointer; r4 not so much. The new registers, by contrast,

Why can't we move data directly from a memory location into another memory location. Pardon me if I am asking a dumb question, but I think this is a true situation, at least for the ones I've encountered (8085,8086 n 80386) I am not really looking for a solution for moving the data (like for eg, using movs n all), but actually the reason for this anomaly. Most CPU varieties don't allow memory-to-memory moves. Normally the CPU can access only one memory location at at time, which means you need a temporary spot to store the value when moving it (a general purpose register, usually). If you

In my work I deal with different micro-controllers, micro-processors and DSP processors. Many of them have 24-bits registers and counters. I know how to use them, this is not my question. My question is why do they have 24-bits register! why not make it 32 bit? and as I know, it is not a problem of size, because the registers are already 32bits, but have maximum of 0xFFFFFF. Do this provide easier HW implementation? Faster calculations? Or it is just "hmmm, lets put 24-bits registers to make the job of programmers more hard"? My guess is that most DSP applications simply don't need 32-bits.