Advertisement

Die Fehlertoleranzeigenschaften der Puffermaschine

  • K. v. d. Heide
Conference paper
Part of the Informatik-Fachberichte book series (INFORMATIK, volume 83)

Abstract

The main reason of the software crisis is the use of the von Neumann computer architecture and of programming languages related to it. A way out, therefore, necessitates both, new architectures and new languages. The buffer machine Puma (which stands for the German Puffer-Machine) is the result of such an investigation. It has an abstract storage (or data type) architecture. But, more important than addressing objects by their names, is the organization of the control flow in Puma. There are no GOTOs on machine level. Any machine program has the form of a Nassi Schneiderman diagram, i.e. a sequence of instructions called an action. Instructions may be atoms or conditional or unconditional calls of actions. Reaching the end of an action at run time is automatically interpreted as “return to the calling action”. Actions are compiled separately. Since all objects are context-independently addressed by their names, a binding is unnecessary. Puma has excellent detection capabilities for sofware and hardware faults by the use of object descriptors and tags. Since the processor neither has a program counter nor any other register, exception handling can immediately be inserted. Conventional languages like Pascal, Ada and FORTRAN can be compiled, but the Puma assembler in some sense is more user-oriented, since the assembly program is not a linear sequence of code, but a set of independent actions.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literatur

  1. (1).
    E. A. Feustel, “On the Advantages of Tagged Architectures”, IEEE Trans. Comput. C 22, 644–656 (1973).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. (2).
    W. K. Giloi, “Rechnerarchitektur”, Springer, Berlin 1981.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. (3).
    K. von der Heide, “Objektorientierte Speicheradressierung ermöglicht hohen Durchsatz und hohe Verfügbarkeit”, in Soyan und Wedekind (Hrsg.): Objektorientierte Software und Hardwarearchitekturen, Teubner, Stuttgart 1983.Google Scholar
  4. (4).
    K. von der Heide, “Eine Rechnerarchitektur mit Auftragsanziehung auf der Befehlsebene”, in I. Kupka (Hrsg.): Informatik Fachberichte 73, S. 117–133, Springer, Berlin 1983.Google Scholar
  5. (5).
    K. von der Heide, “Puma: die Puffermaschine”, GI-NTG-Workshop “Fehlertolerante Mehrprozessor- und Mehrrechnersysteme”, Arbeitsberichte des IMMD der Friedrich Alexander Universität Erlangen Nürnberg (E. Maehle, E. Schmitter, Hrsg.), S. 70–80 (1983).Google Scholar
  6. (6).
    C. A. R. Hoare, “Communicating Sequential Processes”, Commun. ACM 21, 666–677 (1978).zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. (7).
    H. von Issendorff, “Dezentrale Software-Erstellung durch Netzwerkprogrammierung”, in I. Kupka (Hrsg.): Informatik Fachberichte 73, S. 146–160, Springer, Berlin 1983.Google Scholar
  8. (8).
    G. J. Myers, “Advances in Computer Architecture, Second Edition”, John Wiley, New York 1982.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. (9).
    M. Tokoro and T. Takizuka, “On the Semantic Structure of Information - A Proposal of the Abstract Storage Architecture”, Proceedings of the 9th Annual Symposium on Computer Architecture, pp. 211–217, Austin 1982.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1984

Authors and Affiliations

  • K. v. d. Heide
    • 1
  1. 1.FFM/FGANWerthhovenGermany

Personalised recommendations