Talk:Accumulator (computing)

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Computing This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Computer hardware task force.

This article is based on material taken from the Free On-line Dictionary of Computing prior to 1 November 2008 and incorporated under the "relicensing" terms of the GFDL, version 1.3 or later.

This is bad, really bad.

First of all this article suggests an accumulator processors has one accumulator (which

did). However numerous examples are contrary to this such as

• 6809 has accumulators A and B that could be concatenated to D, 6308
  had even more
• 56300 has again 2 large accumulators of extended width
• 96000 also has 2 accumulators that are even wider

With 2 accumulators you need only a single bit in the instruction to indicate what accumulator is to be used.

has a lot of data registers, and those are not called accumulators, so the article should state clearly where the limit is. Seems the limit is around 4 (ARM Piccolo)

.

Next is the link to

, specifically the section Legacy_of_accumulator-based_architectures which no longer exists. Is there any reason why this has to be split up?

Also it seems a bit lacking that the

multiply-and-accumulate

is not mentioned.

All in all an article in need of an overhaul. --22:47, 22 February 2009 (UTC) Amended --21:30, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Hopefully such an overhaul will also disambiguate further, since the term "accumulator" in programming applies to a variable in which values are accumulated... 63.249.90.205 (talk) 00:55, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on

|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070928031937/http://www.freescale.com/webapp/sps/site/overview.jsp?code=DRMCRHC16OV&srch=1 to http://www.freescale.com/webapp/sps/site/overview.jsp?code=DRMCRHC16OV&srch=1

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the —

]

What is "early"

]

The

Guy Harris (talk) 23:45, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

@

Guy Harris

:The 705 actually had 16 accumulators, although IBM referred to the smaller ones as Auxiliary Storage Units (ASUs). Of the IBM machines prior to the S/360, only the 702, 705, 7070 and 7080 had multiple accumulators, although there were machines with both an accumulator and a Multiplier-Quotient register, or equivalent.

It was common for character-oriented machines to be storage-to-storage with no accumulator, as in the 1401/1440/1460/1410/7010 and the RCA 301/3301.

Other vendors' decimal machines followed the same pattern; either word with single accumulator or character with no accumulator. --Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 18:32, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]