RichardC (tich.delete@this.pobox.com) on April 12, 2017 11:06 am wrote:
> Seni (seniike.delete@this.hotmail.com) on April 11, 2017 10:27 pm wrote:
>
> > Single-cycle instructions do not need this sequencer at all. It's a huge distinction.
> >
> > When anon asks "Is there a hard line between microcode and non-microcode?" The answer is yes.
> > This right here is the line. Single-cycle instructions with no sequencer are absolutely not microcode.
>
> A mathematician would say it's the trivial case of microcode :-)

I don't know if you realize how frustrating this. I'm trying to make this as clear and obvious as possible, and yet several of you are completely missing the point, and can't see the forest for the trees when I am pointing at it and repeating "This is a forest. These trees are a forest." Maybe it can't be taught?

Single cycle is not just a minimal version of multi-cycle. It is qualitatively different. Not only do you not need the ROM/PLA. You don't need the cycle counter, or even the instruction register.

I repeat, with emphasis:

Single-cycle instructions WITH NO SEQUENCER are absolutely not microcode.

NO SEQUENCER.
Single cycle means it's possible to have NO SEQUENCER.

Have I repeated it enough yet? Do you get it now?