[mettamage]

For me, this is peak Hacker News. I am happy I took the hard courses at uni to understand a post like this. I’m also happy that HN was there to stimulate this thinking at the time (2015). Even if I now don’t really do anything with my humble knowledge of low level programming, every time it feels consciousnesses enriching. And it’s an awesome feeling.

For people that don’t have access to a uni, I recommend nand2tetris.org

[morphle]

Just building your own microprocessor from gates is an easier way to learn about designing microcode and understanding how processors work(ed). But it can't hurt to study a few simple old designs like RISC or Transputer. The 80386 is on the other side of that spectrum, needlessly complicated because they wanted to be backwards compatible with an old bad design.

There certainly is no need to go to university to learn chip design. Watching a few Alan Kay talks [3] or browsing Bitsavers computer designs [4] are good starting points.

We made an easier way (than FPGA) to simulate and convert your gate level design into transistors on a chip (for less than $200 in 2026). We call it Morphle Logic [1].

Eventually you grow into making the largest fastest and cheapest supercomputer wafer scale integration [2].

[1] https://github.com/fiberhood/MorphleLogic/blob/main/README_M...

[2]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbqKClBwFwI

[3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f1605Zmwek8

[4] http://bitsavers.informatik.uni-stuttgart.de/pdf/xerox/alto/...

[joleyj]

> needlessly complicated because they wanted to be backwards compatible with an old bad design.

It's not really needless complication of there is a reason for the complication. Obvioudsly in this case the need to be backward compatible with an old design made the implemtation more complicated than if they didn't need to do that. There were very, very strong business reasons why backward compatibility was a design requirment.

[fortran77]

And was it a bad design? It was very succcessful and enabled a lot of progress.

[drivers99]

I did nand2tetris a couple times, but it emphasizes simplicity in every level of abstraction. That in itself is an amazing lesson and has been an inspiration, but that also means it skips things like microcode. In college (in the 1990s) I took a EE class as part of my CS degree that went through how an 8086-like[0] CPU is made, a lot like nand2tetris but without necessarily making each part an assignment. It did cover how microcode worked where there was an internal program counter that stepped through a table of control words whose bits directly orchestrated each controllable piece of the CPU. We each got an instruction to implement on a simulator that the teacher had made previously. (I got DEC, decrement.)

In a way I guess the instructions in nand2tetris are the microcode. The bits of the instructions directly control the hardware with the first bit choosing 2 instruction types, so there’s only 1 step of code per instruction, unlike with microcode where an instruction can have any number of microcode steps.

In Ben Eater’s series of videos building an 8-bit CPU on breadboards he has ROMs that are indexed by the opcode (4 bits of the instruction) + a step counter to determine the control word. The ROM stands in for what could be done with sufficiently complicated logic gates. I like it as a next step on the hardware side as you get hands on experience with electronics and having to troubleshoot it.

It’s disappointing how it only has 16 bytes of RAM so you can’t really build higher levels of abstraction like you can with nand2tetris. But at that point you could (I should) either redo it with a better design (and put it on PCBs) or move on to the 6502 project, and then since that puts together a timer, CPU, ROM, RAM, I/O, UART, etc. mentally group those together and move on to microcontrollers that already have them together.

Anyone interested in reading about how a CPU could be made out of logic gates could also read Code by Charles Petzold (moves slower, recently updated) and/or Pattern on the Stone by Danny Hillis (moves faster).

Edit: I just checked Code (2nd edition) and that uses a 4 bit cycle counter and hard logic gates to determine what to do each cycle. But then it uses an array of diodes for part of the logic. Would that be considered microcode?

[0] there were classes that covered more advanced (pipelined) CPUs in another CS class but not at quite a low level where you felt like you could make one yourself

[anthk]

You might like this, a CPU made by TTL's running Minix 2.

https://www.homebrewcpu.com/

I might upload Tristam Island (Z-Machine v3 game, like Zork and infocom games they already have the interpreter) among the feelies in ASCII format. Yes, dfrotz runs snappier than the vi clone they have. And more stable than their ed implementation.

[chadgpt3]

Microcode in modern CPUs isn't anything like classic microcode - except for certain instructions like CPUID and WRMSR, where the CPU really does interpret a microcode subroutine.

It's become a generic term for patching parts of a CPU at startup time instead. Most of microcode is things like code for the Management Engine, chicken bits to disable features, routines for CPUID/etc, and yes, a small number of patch registers that can intercept execution of ordinary instructions and run microcode instead, but not enough to override all instructions accessing ah-dh.

[deskamess]

Do you know if nand2tetris covers/uses microcode?

[drivers99]

It doesn’t. I posted a reply to the same comment before I saw your question. Even the books I mentioned didn’t really get into it. I tried a search for some that did and ran across Constructing a Microprogrammed Computer by O.J. Mengali which looks interesting. It says it has you implement the microcode for 4 different architectures. I’m going to check it out.

[mettamage]

Ah that's a shame. I had a computer systems course at uni where we were playing around with the microcode from the MIC-1 created by Tanenbaum. I sort of figured that Nand2Tetris just had that in it.