Except for P&H. As mentioned in comment he now recommends CS:APP
P&H is “Patterson & Hennesy” (Computer Organization and Design), right? I gotta say, having read both, I think they cover different ground and I wouldn’t say that once replaces the other. P&H is more hardware with a nod to software and CS:APP is more software with a nod to hardware; you won’t get a really deep understanding of instruction pipelining from CS:APP, nor will you really get great coverage of linking and loading from P&H. If you’re going to do it, read both.
Comments
P&H is “Patterson & Hennesy” (Computer Organization and Design), right? I gotta say, having read both, I think they cover different ground and I wouldn’t say that once replaces the other. P&H is more hardware with a nod to software and CS:APP is more software with a nod to hardware; you won’t get a really deep understanding of instruction pipelining from CS:APP, nor will you really get great coverage of linking and loading from P&H. If you’re going to do it, read both.
I dearly agree with you. But, given an options between two I'll chose CSS:APP. Reason being it being more close to software.
I'll like to say that I had the same observation as you when went through both. I almost felt like I wrote the comment.
That's true - you're definitely correct that P&H is more of a "nice to have" for a developer.