Re: Register file splits, a new look.

From	MitchAlsup <MitchAlsup@aol.com>
Newsgroups	comp.arch
Subject	Re: Register file splits, a new look.
Date	2012-02-10 12:26 -0800
Organization	http://groups.google.com
Message-ID	<8314925.1151.1328905578623.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@vbbgq7> (permalink)
References	<ggtgp-1DA77E.06332706022012@netnews.mchsi.com> <7z1uq4qpf4.fsf@ask.diku.dk> <21254419.964.1328818372560.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@yqad38> <ggtgp-9C575B.12220110022012@netnews.mchsi.com>

Show all headers | View raw

On Friday, February 10, 2012 12:22:01 PM UTC-6, Brett Davis wrote:
> So the conclusion is that splitting the register file is a loser, no matter how you chop it up?

No, the conclusion is that addresses, ints, and FP are close enough in desired data path requirements that placing them in a sufficiently large file is the better of several less tham optimal choices.

In addition, there is a different kind of data (short vector) that IS enough different to warrent a different kind of file in which to manage data over short periods of time.

> I am still temped to limit address operations to the first 16 registers, just to save opcode bits.

You could just as easily limit them to the second (or last) 16 registers.

> This become vital if you support big 128 register in-order float monsters for the console market.

128-architectural register entries or 128-bit registers?

Would you not be just as well of with 32 architectural registers of 64-bits each and 32 registers of 128-bits or 256-bits for short vector computations?

Mitch

Back to comp.arch | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

Register file splits, a new look. Brett Davis <ggtgp@yahoo.com> - 2012-02-06 06:33 -0600
  Re: Register file splits, a new look. MitchAlsup <MitchAlsup@aol.com> - 2012-02-06 09:29 -0800
    Re: Register file splits, a new look. Brett Davis <ggtgp@yahoo.com> - 2012-02-07 07:08 -0600
  Re: Register file splits, a new look. torbenm@diku.dk (Torben Ægidius Mogensen) - 2012-02-09 11:19 +0100
    Re: Register file splits, a new look. MitchAlsup <MitchAlsup@aol.com> - 2012-02-09 12:12 -0800
      Re: Register file splits, a new look. "Paul A. Clayton" <paaronclayton@gmail.com> - 2012-02-09 15:27 -0800
        Re: Register file splits, a new look. MitchAlsup <MitchAlsup@aol.com> - 2012-02-09 15:52 -0800
      Re: Register file splits, a new look. nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2012-02-10 08:07 +0000
        Re: Register file splits, a new look. "Andy (Super) Glew" <andy@SPAM.comp-arch.net> - 2012-02-10 06:37 -0800
      Re: Register file splits, a new look. Terje Mathisen <"terje.mathisen at tmsw.no"> - 2012-02-10 09:36 +0100
      Re: Register file splits, a new look. Brett Davis <ggtgp@yahoo.com> - 2012-02-10 12:22 -0600
        Re: Register file splits, a new look. MitchAlsup <MitchAlsup@aol.com> - 2012-02-10 12:26 -0800
          Re: Register file splits, a new look. Brett Davis <ggtgp@yahoo.com> - 2012-02-11 07:25 -0600
            Re: Register file splits, a new look. Brett Davis <ggtgp@yahoo.com> - 2012-02-16 17:17 -0600
            Re: Register file splits, a new look. MitchAlsup <MitchAlsup@aol.com> - 2012-02-16 16:25 -0800
              Re: Register file splits, a new look. Brett Davis <ggtgp@yahoo.com> - 2012-02-17 14:08 -0600
                Re: Register file splits, a new look. MitchAlsup <MitchAlsup@aol.com> - 2012-02-28 08:54 -0800
                Re: Register file splits, a new look. Brett Davis <ggtgp@yahoo.com> - 2012-02-28 19:33 -0600

csiph-web