Talk:RCA 1802

message: The article states that it was "introduced early in 1976". However, it also says it was used on the Viking Mars landers. These were launched in 1975 and probably needed to be based on plans that couldn't change much into the manufacturing stage. Thus, such a chip would probably have had to exist around 1973. And, I doubt NASA would base a billion-dollar probe on a prototype. Perhaps it was the 1801 chipset/model? Or perhaps it was designed around the 1801 chipset but switched to 1802 late in the project because the 1802 is compatible with the 1801 set. --Tablizer (talk) 05:11, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Note that it was NOT used in the Viking. This has been corrected with citations.--WillBo (talk) 08:15, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Timeline Conflict? 

message: Would be a nice addition, since the 1802 instruction set was mentioned in the Popular Electronic article as having been designed by
a single person..  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikip rhyre (talk • contribs) 12:43, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  CPU architecture infobox? 

message: Complementary Silicon/Metal-oxide Semiconductor would be abbreviated COSMOS, not COSMAC. That's how it's bolded in the article, too. Does the acronym really stand for something else? 69.54.60.34 (talk) 17:57, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: COSMOS was RCA's acronym for their general CMOS process, not specifically the 1802.  COSMAC was the acronym for the 1802 family. --Brouhaha (talk) 17:08, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Complementary Silicon/Metal-oxide Semiconductor? 

message: I recall that in a computer I built around the 1802 in 1977 that the undefined instruction hex code 68 was essentially "lethal" to code it RAM. It wrote 68 hex over the next instruction. When the next instruction was executed the process repeated filling RAM with 68 Hex. This would be worth mentioning if someone can confirm my recollection.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.212.187.148 (talk) 18:30, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The 68 hex instruction is "undefined" for the 1802, and used for extended instruction set instructions for 1804, 1805, & 1806. I have seen discussions about what happens when the instruction is executed in the 1802, which I think is as mentioned above, but it is unknown if that is universal for all (several) source company microprocessor chips. It is not "lethal", however. --WillBo (talk) 20:04, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Undefined Instruction 

message: None of the chip markings/suffixes have  any citations documenting. Citation Needed markings applied. If you have documentation, please cite. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable per Wikipedia standards.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.252.4.21 (talk) 08:27, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Much of the information in this section was gathered from MANY source documents, so citing is problematic. I am in the process of creating a web page about this information on my website ( http://www.MDCCCII.com/ ), and will end up using it as the citation. It will have citations for its information. That should be good enough. I did find a decent citation for the second request, so I added that. I'm about as close to an expert on the 1802 as anyone can be, and I assure you I only add information to this page that I KNOW is correct. MOST of the citations on the page (and associated information) were added by me. I don't know when I will get my 'summary' page completed. But hopefully not too far in the future. It's a lot of work to do it well and right. (just compiling the information in this section was a lot of work) I only added this section because someone added some scant similar information in the wrong place, so I deleted it and added this more expansive information, knowing that I didn't have a citation for it yet.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by WillBo (talk • contribs) 07:54, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Package Markings 

message: Here is a better die shot than the one used in this page. I'm not sure how the copyright works here, is it possible to use this? Illiteration (talk) 15:19, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Afaik, it has to be either in the public domain or the copyright owner has to give permission. --WillBo (talk) 19:57, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Better Die Shot 

message: The 1802 was used in underwater equipment deployed in the lagoon at Kwajalein (the downrange end of the Pacific Missile Test Range). The equipment detected the acoustic signature of a warhead strike on the ocean surface, recorded an accurate timestamp, and later reported its results by acoustic telemetry. We probably cannot document this because the source material is likely classified if it still exists at all (this was back in the 80s). But it was an interesting application. N.B. - I have never held a security clearance of any type.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.43.56.108 (talk) 02:12, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another application 

message: Does anyone know if the statement "It is currently being manufactured by Intersil Corporation as a high-reliability microprocessor." is still correct?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emulate-atg (talk • contribs) 06:08, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link in Intro is dead 

message: As part of a cleanup effort for various 8-bit CPUs, I re-wrote the lede of this article. I found it in a rather confused state - repetitive, containing trivia like part numbers, lacking the fact that it was the first CMOS CPU, and far too long - according to the MOS the lede should generally be four paragraphs except for very long articles, which this isn't. However, my work was RVed, with a comment that it removed hard work, thereby introducing most of the problems again. Unless someone can offer specific points as to what was wrong with my version, I would be inclined to re-instate the edits.  Maury Markowitz (talk) 00:32, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent edits

message: There are comparisons of clock cycles to other contemporary (or not) processors. The comparisons aren't very useful without clock speed values.  One can often trade off cycles for speed in a design. (More recently, this often comes up comparing Intel and AMD processors.)  As well as I remember, though 1970's CMOS was pretty slow, though that depended on supply voltage. Gah4 (talk) 18:09, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  cycles 

message: The Emulators and Simulators section has long referenced a VHDL core purportedly written by Scott Baker, with a link to a nearly empty github repo that doesn't actually contain such a VHDL core. I don't know whether Baker has actually written one, but I don't think it should be cited unless a more suitable link can be provided.
I am not myself making such a change to the article; my doing so might be construed as a conflict of interest as I am the author of another VHDL core that is referenced. I would request that another editor please look into it, and if warranted, edit the section accordingly.
--Brouhaha (talk) 07:16, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  VHDL cores 

message: While I get the love for the processor, and its historical significance, I'm minded to suggest that this section either goes or is totally rewritten.
1. There's only one of them - it's a code sample. More importantly...
2. It's largely meaningless to anyone who's not already familiar with the chip. I thought I was 'knowledgeable enough to read "pseudo-code" and is minimally familiar with assembly and machine language programming' having used, for 8-bit CPUs, 6502, 8080, Z-80 and 6809, but clearly that's not enough.
"GHI 0     .. SET UP R6" - what does the GHI instruction do, and why does having it be zero set up R6? 
"SEX 0     .. (X=0 ALREADY)" - if it's zero already, what is gained by setting it to be zero again?
etc. Replace with a link to the reference manuals? Lovingboth (talk) 15:18, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Code Samples