Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.arch > #108284 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Robert Finch <robfi680@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2024-09-06 22:27 -0400 |
| Last post | 2025-11-13 07:24 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 908 — 33 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.arch
Tonights Tradeoff Robert Finch <robfi680@gmail.com> - 2024-09-06 22:27 -0400
Re: Tonights Tradeoff mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-09-07 14:41 +0000
Re: Tonights Tradeoff Robert Finch <robfi680@gmail.com> - 2024-09-07 23:22 -0400
Re: Tonights Tradeoff mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-09-08 18:06 +0000
Re: Tonights Tradeoff Robert Finch <robfi680@gmail.com> - 2024-09-09 23:59 -0400
Re: Tonights Tradeoff BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2024-09-10 02:00 -0500
Re: Tonights Tradeoff Robert Finch <robfi680@gmail.com> - 2024-09-10 10:58 -0400
Re: Tonights Tradeoff BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2024-09-10 16:07 -0500
Re: Tonights Tradeoff Robert Finch <robfi680@gmail.com> - 2024-09-11 09:54 -0400
Re: Tonights Tradeoff Stephen Fuld <sfuld@alumni.cmu.edu.invalid> - 2024-09-11 08:48 -0700
Re: Tonights Tradeoff mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-09-11 21:32 +0000
Re: Tonights Tradeoff Robert Finch <robfi680@gmail.com> - 2024-09-11 23:37 -0400
Re: Tonights Tradeoff mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-09-12 16:46 +0000
Re: Tonights Tradeoff Robert Finch <robfi680@gmail.com> - 2024-09-12 15:28 -0400
Re: Tonights Tradeoff mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-09-12 20:46 +0000
Re: Tonights Tradeoff EricP <ThatWouldBeTelling@thevillage.com> - 2024-09-13 11:08 -0400
Re: Tonights Tradeoff mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-09-13 17:09 +0000
Re: Tonights Tradeoff BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2024-09-11 18:44 -0500
Re: Tonights Tradeoff mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-09-11 21:30 +0000
Re: Tonights Tradeoff mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-09-11 21:28 +0000
Re: Tonights Tradeoff Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2024-09-12 05:37 +0000
Re: Tonights Tradeoff BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2024-09-12 03:21 -0500
Re: Tonights Tradeoff Robert Finch <robfi680@gmail.com> - 2024-09-12 06:21 -0400
Re: Tonights Tradeoff mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-09-11 21:27 +0000
Re: Tonights Tradeoff Robert Finch <robfi680@gmail.com> - 2024-09-15 03:13 -0400
Re: Tonights Tradeoff Robert Finch <robfi680@gmail.com> - 2024-09-16 01:45 -0400
Re: Tonights Tradeoff - Background Execution Buffers Robert Finch <robfi680@gmail.com> - 2024-09-24 16:03 -0400
Re: Tonights Tradeoff - Background Execution Buffers mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-09-24 20:38 +0000
Re: Tonights Tradeoff - Background Execution Buffers Robert Finch <robfi680@gmail.com> - 2024-09-26 04:13 -0400
Re: Tonights Tradeoff - Background Execution Buffers mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-09-26 14:11 +0000
Re: Tonights Tradeoff - Background Execution Buffers Robert Finch <robfi680@gmail.com> - 2024-09-27 08:58 -0400
Re: Tonights Tradeoff - Background Execution Buffers Robert Finch <robfi680@gmail.com> - 2024-10-04 00:04 -0400
Re: Tonights Tradeoff - Background Execution Buffers anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2024-10-04 06:19 +0000
Re: Tonights Tradeoff - Background Execution Buffers Robert Finch <robfi680@gmail.com> - 2024-10-04 11:54 -0400
Re: Tonights Tradeoff - Background Execution Buffers anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2024-10-05 09:43 +0000
Re: Tonights Tradeoff - Background Execution Buffers Robert Finch <robfi680@gmail.com> - 2024-10-09 06:44 -0400
Re: Tonights Tradeoff - Background Execution Buffers scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-10-09 14:43 +0000
Re: Tonights Tradeoff - Background Execution Buffers mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-10-09 16:19 +0000
Re: Tonights Tradeoff - Background Execution Buffers Robert Finch <robfi680@gmail.com> - 2024-10-09 15:37 -0400
Re: Tonights Tradeoff - Background Execution Buffers BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2024-10-12 14:10 -0500
Re: Tonights Tradeoff - Carry and Overflow Robert Finch <robfi680@gmail.com> - 2024-10-12 05:38 -0400
Re: Tonights Tradeoff - Carry and Overflow mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-10-12 18:50 +0000
Re: Tonights Tradeoff - Carry and Overflow BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2024-10-12 15:14 -0500
Re: Tonights Tradeoff - Carry and Overflow Robert Finch <robfi680@gmail.com> - 2024-10-12 18:20 -0400
Re: Tonights Tradeoff - Carry and Overflow mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-10-12 23:28 +0000
Re: Tonights Tradeoff - ATOM Robert Finch <robfi680@gmail.com> - 2024-10-13 02:46 -0400
Re: Tonights Tradeoff - ATOM mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-10-13 18:19 +0000
Re: Tonights Tradeoff - Carry and Overflow BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2024-10-12 20:36 -0500
Page fetching cache controller Robert Finch <robfi680@gmail.com> - 2024-10-31 05:18 -0400
Re: Page fetching cache controller mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-10-31 19:11 +0000
Re: Q+ Fibonacci Robert Finch <robfi680@gmail.com> - 2024-11-05 23:30 -0500
Re: register sets Robert Finch <robfi680@gmail.com> - 2025-04-16 23:42 -0400
Re: register sets Stephen Fuld <sfuld@alumni.cmu.edu.invalid> - 2025-04-16 23:26 -0700
Re: register sets scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-04-17 13:35 +0000
Re: register sets Robert Finch <robfi680@gmail.com> - 2025-04-17 14:24 -0400
Re: register sets mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2025-04-17 18:26 +0000
Re: register sets Robert Finch <robfi680@gmail.com> - 2025-04-17 21:56 -0400
Re: register sets mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2025-04-18 17:12 +0000
Re: register sets Robert Finch <robfi680@gmail.com> - 2025-04-20 02:44 -0400
Re: auto predicating branches Robert Finch <robfi680@gmail.com> - 2025-04-20 21:26 -0400
Re: auto predicating branches anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2025-04-21 06:05 +0000
Is an instruction on the critical path? (was: auto predicating branches) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2025-04-21 13:39 +0000
Re: auto predicating branches mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2025-04-21 17:29 +0000
Re: auto predicating branches anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2025-04-22 05:10 +0000
Re: auto predicating branches EricP <ThatWouldBeTelling@thevillage.com> - 2025-04-22 11:23 -0400
Re: auto predicating branches anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2025-04-22 17:31 +0000
Re: auto predicating branches mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2025-04-22 22:32 +0000
Re: auto predicating branches Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2025-04-22 22:59 -0400
Re: auto predicating branches anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2025-04-23 18:09 +0000
Re: auto predicating branches EricP <ThatWouldBeTelling@thevillage.com> - 2025-04-24 10:10 -0400
Re: auto predicating branches mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2025-04-25 20:51 +0000
Re: auto predicating branches EricP <ThatWouldBeTelling@thevillage.com> - 2025-04-24 09:47 -0400
Re: auto predicating branches anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2025-04-23 17:44 +0000
Re: auto predicating branches mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2025-04-23 21:34 +0000
Re: asynch register rename Robert Finch <robfi680@gmail.com> - 2025-04-23 23:31 -0400
Re: fractional PCs Robert Finch <robfi680@gmail.com> - 2025-04-27 07:36 -0400
Re: fractional PCs mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2025-04-27 20:53 +0000
Re: fractional PCs Robert Finch <robfi680@gmail.com> - 2025-04-27 22:32 -0400
Re: fractional PCs EricP <ThatWouldBeTelling@thevillage.com> - 2025-04-28 10:06 -0400
Re: fractional PCs EricP <ThatWouldBeTelling@thevillage.com> - 2025-04-28 10:50 -0400
Re: fractional PCs Robert Finch <robfi680@gmail.com> - 2025-04-28 22:35 -0400
Re: fractional PCs mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2025-04-29 21:39 +0000
Re: fractional PCs Robert Finch <robfi680@gmail.com> - 2025-04-30 01:21 -0400
Re: fractional PCs Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2025-04-30 18:09 +0000
Re: fractional PCs Robert Finch <robfi680@gmail.com> - 2025-04-30 19:00 -0400
Re: fractional PCs EricP <ThatWouldBeTelling@thevillage.com> - 2025-05-02 11:18 -0400
Re: fractional PCs moi <findlaybill@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2025-05-02 17:03 +0100
Re: fractional PCs EricP <ThatWouldBeTelling@thevillage.com> - 2025-05-02 13:22 -0400
Re: fractional PCs moi <findlaybill@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2025-05-02 20:01 +0100
Re: millicode, extracode, fractional PCs John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2025-05-02 17:26 +0000
Re: millicode, extracode, fractional PCs moi <findlaybill@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2025-05-02 20:00 +0100
Re: fractional PCs mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2025-04-30 19:04 +0000
Re: fractional PCs mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2025-04-28 22:02 +0000
Re: fractional PCs Robert Finch <robfi680@gmail.com> - 2025-04-28 22:00 -0400
Re: control co-processor Robert Finch <robfi680@gmail.com> - 2025-05-05 00:40 -0400
Re: control co-processor Al Kossow <aek@bitsavers.org> - 2025-05-05 03:01 -0700
Re: control co-processor scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-05-05 13:46 +0000
Re: control co-processor Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2025-05-05 10:02 -0400
Re: control co-processor scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-05-05 16:19 +0000
Scan chains (was: control co-processor) Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2025-05-06 23:12 -0400
Re: Scan chains (was: control co-processor) Al Kossow <aek@bitsavers.org> - 2025-05-06 21:08 -0700
Re: Scan chains Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2025-05-07 10:58 -0400
Re: Scan chains mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2025-05-07 16:57 +0000
Re: Scan chains Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2025-05-07 15:03 -0400
Re: Scan chains mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2025-05-08 01:04 +0000
Re: Scan chains mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2025-07-15 17:21 +0000
Re: control co-processor mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2025-05-06 22:17 +0000
Re: control co-processor EricP <ThatWouldBeTelling@thevillage.com> - 2025-05-06 19:58 -0400
Re: control co-processor mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2025-05-07 16:44 +0000
Re: control co-processor mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2025-07-15 17:09 +0000
Re: auto predicating branches EricP <ThatWouldBeTelling@thevillage.com> - 2025-04-25 13:19 -0400
Re: auto predicating branches EricP <ThatWouldBeTelling@thevillage.com> - 2025-04-24 08:54 -0400
Re: auto predicating branches mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2025-04-22 16:45 +0000
Re: register sets John Savard <quadibloc@invalid.invalid> - 2025-07-15 04:56 +0000
Re: register sets mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2025-07-15 17:16 +0000
Re: register sets Robert Finch <robfi680@gmail.com> - 2025-07-19 08:18 -0400
Re: register sets anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2025-07-19 16:37 +0000
Re: register sets mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2025-07-19 20:02 +0000
Re: register sets John Savard <quadibloc@invalid.invalid> - 2025-07-15 04:49 +0000
Re: register sets scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-07-15 14:10 +0000
Re: register sets mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2025-07-15 17:14 +0000
Re: Tonights Tradeoff - Carry and Overflow EricP <ThatWouldBeTelling@thevillage.com> - 2024-10-15 09:49 -0400
Re: Tonights Tradeoff - Background Execution Buffers anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2024-10-13 16:43 +0000
Re: Tonights Tradeoff - Background Execution Buffers BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2024-10-04 12:28 -0500
Re: Tonights Tradeoff - Background Execution Buffers mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-10-05 23:02 +0000
Re: Tonights Tradeoff Robert Finch <robfi680@gmail.com> - 2025-10-28 23:52 -0400
Re: Tonights Tradeoff Stephen Fuld <sfuld@alumni.cmu.edu.invalid> - 2025-10-29 00:14 -0700
Re: Tonights Tradeoff Robert Finch <robfi680@gmail.com> - 2025-10-29 08:41 -0400
Re: Tonights Tradeoff Robert Finch <robfi680@gmail.com> - 2025-10-29 08:50 -0400
Re: Tonights Tradeoff BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2025-10-29 13:04 -0500
Re: Tonights Tradeoff anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2025-10-29 17:44 +0000
Re: Tonights Tradeoff Stephen Fuld <sfuld@alumni.cmu.edu.invalid> - 2025-10-29 11:29 -0700
Re: Tonights Tradeoff anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2025-10-29 22:31 +0000
Re: Tonights Tradeoff MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-10-30 16:10 +0000
Re: Tonights Tradeoff BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2025-10-30 12:29 -0500
Re: Tonights Tradeoff anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2025-10-30 16:46 +0000
Re: Tonights Tradeoff Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-10-30 23:39 +0200
Re: Tonights Tradeoff anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2025-10-30 22:19 +0000
Re: Tonights Tradeoff Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-10-31 00:57 +0200
Re: Tonights Tradeoff anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2025-10-31 14:48 +0000
Re: Tonights Tradeoff BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2025-10-31 13:21 -0500
Re: Tonights Tradeoff BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2025-10-31 14:32 -0500
Re: Tonights Tradeoff BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2025-11-02 02:21 -0600
Re: Tonights Tradeoff Robert Finch <robfi680@gmail.com> - 2025-11-02 10:06 -0500
Re: Tonights Tradeoff BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2025-11-02 14:58 -0600
Re: Tonights Tradeoff Robert Finch <robfi680@gmail.com> - 2025-11-02 16:56 -0500
Re: Tonights Tradeoff BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2025-11-02 17:21 -0600
Re: Tonights Tradeoff Terje Mathisen <terje.mathisen@tmsw.no> - 2025-10-31 21:12 +0100
Re: Tonights Tradeoff MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-10-30 22:00 +0000
Re: Tonights Tradeoff anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2025-11-01 19:18 +0000
Re: Tonights Tradeoff BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2025-10-29 04:29 -0500
Re: Tonights Tradeoff MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-10-29 18:47 +0000
Re: Tonights Tradeoff Stephen Fuld <sfuld@alumni.cmu.edu.invalid> - 2025-10-29 13:05 -0700
Re: Tonights Tradeoff MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-10-29 21:52 +0000
Re: Tonights Tradeoff BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2025-10-29 15:58 -0500
Re: Tonights Tradeoff Robert Finch <robfi680@gmail.com> - 2025-10-29 18:26 -0400
Re: Tonights Tradeoff BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2025-10-29 18:48 -0500
Re: Tonights Tradeoff Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2025-10-29 18:15 +0000
Re: Tonights Tradeoff BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2025-10-29 14:02 -0500
Re: Tonights Tradeoff Robert Finch <robfi680@gmail.com> - 2025-10-29 18:01 -0400
Re: Tonights Tradeoff Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2025-10-30 07:13 +0000
Re: Tonights Tradeoff scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-10-30 13:53 +0000
Re: Tonights Tradeoff Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2025-10-30 17:58 +0000
Re: Tonights Tradeoff MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-10-30 22:06 +0000
Re: Tonights Tradeoff MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-10-29 18:33 +0000
Re: Tonights Tradeoff Robert Finch <robfi680@gmail.com> - 2025-10-29 18:20 -0400
Re: Tonights Tradeoff MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-10-30 16:09 +0000
Re: Tonights Tradeoff Terje Mathisen <terje.mathisen@tmsw.no> - 2025-10-31 21:09 +0100
Re: Tonights Tradeoff MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-01 18:19 +0000
Re: Tonights Tradeoff Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2025-11-01 21:08 +0000
Re: Tonights Tradeoff Terje Mathisen <terje.mathisen@tmsw.no> - 2025-11-02 11:36 +0100
Re: Tonights Tradeoff Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-11-02 15:56 +0200
Re: Tonights Tradeoff Terje Mathisen <terje.mathisen@tmsw.no> - 2025-11-02 16:09 +0100
Re: Tonights Tradeoff Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-11-02 18:14 +0200
Re: Tonights Tradeoff Terje Mathisen <terje.mathisen@tmsw.no> - 2025-11-02 20:19 +0100
Re: Tonights Tradeoff scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-11-03 15:22 +0000
Re: Tonights Tradeoff BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2025-11-03 11:53 -0600
Re: Tonights Tradeoff Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-11-03 23:04 +0200
Re: Tonights Tradeoff scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-11-04 15:19 +0000
Re: Tonights Tradeoff Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-11-04 17:41 +0200
Re: Tonights Tradeoff scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-11-04 17:12 +0000
Re: Tonights Tradeoff Terje Mathisen <terje.mathisen@tmsw.no> - 2025-11-04 20:16 +0100
Re: Tonights Tradeoff Stephen Fuld <sfuld@alumni.cmu.edu.invalid> - 2025-11-04 07:47 -0800
Re: Tonights Tradeoff Terje Mathisen <terje.mathisen@tmsw.no> - 2025-11-04 16:52 +0100
Re: Tonights Tradeoff Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-11-04 18:54 +0200
Re: Tonights Tradeoff Terje Mathisen <terje.mathisen@tmsw.no> - 2025-11-04 20:13 +0100
Re: Tonights Tradeoff Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2025-11-04 21:07 +0000
Re: Tonights Tradeoff Terje Mathisen <terje.mathisen@tmsw.no> - 2025-11-04 22:52 +0100
Re: Tonights Tradeoff Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-11-05 11:18 +0200
Re: Tonights Tradeoff Terje Mathisen <terje.mathisen@tmsw.no> - 2025-11-05 15:42 +0100
Re: Tonights Tradeoff MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-04 22:51 +0000
Re: Tonights Tradeoff BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2025-11-04 23:43 -0600
Re: Tonights Tradeoff Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2025-11-05 07:13 +0000
Re: Tonights Tradeoff Robert Finch <robfi680@gmail.com> - 2025-11-05 09:25 -0500
Re: Tonights Tradeoff MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-05 20:53 +0000
Re: Tonights Tradeoff Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2025-11-06 17:44 +0000
Re: Tonights Tradeoff Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-11-05 11:21 +0200
Re: Tonights Tradeoff BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2025-11-05 10:15 -0600
Re: Tonights Tradeoff MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-05 21:06 +0000
Re: Tonights Tradeoff Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-11-06 11:24 +0200
Re: Tonights Tradeoff BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 13:11 -0600
Re: Tonights Tradeoff BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2025-11-07 14:28 -0600
Re: Tonights Tradeoff MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-07 22:57 +0000
Re: Tonights Tradeoff BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2025-11-07 20:23 -0600
Re: Tonights Tradeoff Robert Finch <robfi680@gmail.com> - 2025-11-07 22:18 -0500
Re: Tonights Tradeoff - PI as decimal float Robert Finch <robfi680@gmail.com> - 2025-11-08 00:34 -0500
Re: Tonights Tradeoff - PI as decimal float BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2025-11-08 01:30 -0600
Re: Tonights Tradeoff Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2025-11-08 11:28 +0000
Re: Tonights Tradeoff BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2025-11-09 17:22 -0600
Re: Tonights Tradeoff MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-10 02:12 +0000
Re: Tonights Tradeoff BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2025-11-10 03:40 -0600
Re: Tonights Tradeoff Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2025-11-10 06:30 +0000
Re: Tonights Tradeoff Terje Mathisen <terje.mathisen@tmsw.no> - 2025-11-10 08:16 +0100
Re: Tonights Tradeoff BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2025-11-10 13:54 -0600
Re: Tonights Tradeoff Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-11-11 00:08 +0200
Re: Tonights Tradeoff BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2025-11-10 21:25 -0600
Re: Tonights Tradeoff Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-11-11 12:02 +0200
Re: Tonights Tradeoff BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2025-11-11 04:44 -0600
Re: Tonights Tradeoff Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-11-11 14:03 +0200
Re: Tonights Tradeoff BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2025-11-11 21:34 -0600
Re: Tonights Tradeoff Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-11-12 11:47 +0200
Re: Tonights Tradeoff anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2025-11-13 09:24 +0000
Re: Tonights Tradeoff Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-11-13 12:18 +0200
Re: Tonights Tradeoff anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2025-11-13 18:09 +0000
Re: Tonights Tradeoff MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-13 20:40 +0000
Re: Tonights Tradeoff anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2025-11-13 21:50 +0000
Re: Tonights Tradeoff MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-13 22:13 +0000
Re: Tonights Tradeoff Paul Clayton <paaronclayton@gmail.com> - 2026-01-26 20:00 -0500
Re: Tonights Tradeoff scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-01-28 02:10 +0000
Re: Tonights Tradeoff Terje Mathisen <terje.mathisen@tmsw.no> - 2026-02-01 17:51 +0100
Re: Interruptible instructions, was Tonights Tradeoff John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2026-01-28 04:47 +0000
Re: Interruptible instructions, was Tonights Tradeoff Stephen Fuld <sfuld@alumni.cmu.edu.invalid> - 2026-01-28 07:34 -0800
Re: Tonights Tradeoff jgd@cix.co.uk (John Dallman) - 2026-01-28 15:34 +0000
Re: Tonights Tradeoff Paul Clayton <paaronclayton@gmail.com> - 2026-02-04 22:31 -0500
Re: Tonights Tradeoff MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-02-05 19:02 +0000
Re: Tonights Tradeoff "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-02-05 14:35 -0800
Re: Tonights Tradeoff Paul Clayton <paaronclayton@gmail.com> - 2026-02-08 18:22 -0500
Re: Tonights Tradeoff MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-02-09 19:33 +0000
Re: Tonights Tradeoff Paul Clayton <paaronclayton@gmail.com> - 2026-02-09 21:18 -0500
Re: Tonights Tradeoff BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2026-02-18 15:51 -0600
Re: Tonights Tradeoff Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2026-02-10 17:53 +0000
Re: Tonights Tradeoff George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> - 2026-02-10 14:13 -0500
Re: Tonights Tradeoff David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-02-11 15:05 +0100
Re: Tonights Tradeoff George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> - 2026-02-12 10:27 -0500
Re: Tonights Tradeoff jgd@cix.co.uk (John Dallman) - 2026-02-06 15:54 +0000
Re: Tonights Tradeoff Paul Clayton <paaronclayton@gmail.com> - 2026-02-16 20:05 -0500
Re: Tonights Tradeoff jgd@cix.co.uk (John Dallman) - 2026-02-19 08:02 +0000
Re: Tonights Tradeoff BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2026-02-19 05:53 -0600
Re: Tonights Tradeoff John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2026-02-19 19:59 +0000
Re: Tonights Tradeoff BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2026-02-19 17:04 -0600
Re: Tonights Tradeoff Terje Mathisen <terje.mathisen@tmsw.no> - 2026-02-20 15:14 +0100
Re: Tonights Tradeoff jgd@cix.co.uk (John Dallman) - 2026-02-19 23:10 +0000
Re: Tonights Tradeoff MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-02-20 00:06 +0000
Re: Tonights Tradeoff Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2026-02-19 22:35 -0500
Re: Tonights Tradeoff anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2026-02-21 18:41 +0000
Re: Tonights Tradeoff MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-02-21 20:38 +0000
Re: Tonights Tradeoff anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2026-02-22 13:37 +0000
Re: IA64 and VLIW, Tonights Tradeoff John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2026-02-22 03:00 +0000
Re: IA64 and VLIW, Tonights Tradeoff anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2026-02-22 09:16 +0000
Re: IA64 and VLIW, Tonights Tradeoff MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-02-22 19:20 +0000
Re: Tonights Tradeoff Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2026-02-22 11:51 -0500
Re: IA-64 and trace scheduling, Tonights Tradeoff John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2026-02-22 20:14 +0000
Re: IA-64 and trace scheduling, Tonights Tradeoff anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2026-02-22 23:08 +0000
Re: IA-64 and trace scheduling, Tonights Tradeoff John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2026-02-23 01:32 +0000
Re: IA-64 and trace scheduling, Tonights Tradeoff anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2026-02-23 06:55 +0000
Re: IA-64 and trace scheduling, Tonights Tradeoff jgd@cix.co.uk (John Dallman) - 2026-02-23 21:22 +0000
Re: IA-64 and trace scheduling, Tonights Tradeoff Terje Mathisen <terje.mathisen@tmsw.no> - 2026-02-24 10:41 +0100
Re: Tonights Tradeoff kegs@provalid.com (Kent Dickey) - 2026-03-01 21:12 +0000
Re: Tonights Tradeoff Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2026-03-03 11:22 -0500
Re: Tonights Tradeoff jgd@cix.co.uk (John Dallman) - 2026-03-03 20:19 +0000
Re: Tonights Tradeoff BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2026-02-20 15:29 -0600
Re: Tonights Tradeoff MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-02-20 23:49 +0000
Re: Tonights Tradeoff BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2026-02-21 01:00 -0600
Re: Tonights Tradeoff MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-02-21 20:15 +0000
Re: Tonights Tradeoff BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2026-02-21 14:59 -0600
Re: Tonights Tradeoff MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-02-21 22:56 +0000
Re: Tonights Tradeoff BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2026-02-24 17:32 -0600
Re: Tonights Tradeoff jgd@cix.co.uk (John Dallman) - 2026-02-22 21:52 +0000
Re: Tonights Tradeoff BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2026-02-26 14:54 -0600
Re: Tonights Tradeoff MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-02-27 19:27 +0000
Re: Tonights Tradeoff scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-02-27 19:57 +0000
Re: Tonights Tradeoff BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2026-02-27 16:14 -0600
Re: Tonights Tradeoff BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2026-02-27 17:01 -0600
Re: Tonights Tradeoff Terje Mathisen <terje.mathisen@tmsw.no> - 2026-02-28 16:57 +0100
Re: Tonights Tradeoff scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-02-28 17:36 +0000
Re: Tonights Tradeoff Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2026-03-01 12:18 +0000
Re: Tonights Tradeoff David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-03-01 19:19 +0100
Re: Tonights Tradeoff Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2026-03-01 20:24 +0000
Re: Tonights Tradeoff Andy Valencia <vandys@vsta.org> - 2026-03-01 07:55 -0800
Re: Tonights Tradeoff Terje Mathisen <terje.mathisen@tmsw.no> - 2026-02-28 16:41 +0100
Re: Tonights Tradeoff BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2026-03-18 05:38 -0500
IA-64 (was: Tonights Tradeoff) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2026-02-21 16:18 +0000
Re: IA-64 (was: Tonights Tradeoff) MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-02-21 20:28 +0000
Re: IA-64 (was: Tonights Tradeoff) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2026-02-22 13:17 +0000
Re: IA-64 (was: Tonights Tradeoff) Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-02-22 17:05 +0200
Re: IA-64 (was: Tonights Tradeoff) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2026-02-23 08:06 +0000
Re: IA-64 (was: Tonights Tradeoff) Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-02-23 13:03 +0200
Re: IA-64 (was: Tonights Tradeoff) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2026-02-24 10:46 +0000
Re: IA-64 (was: Tonights Tradeoff) Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2026-02-24 12:30 +0000
Re: IA-64 (was: Tonights Tradeoff) Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-02-24 18:26 +0200
Re: IA-64 (was: Tonights Tradeoff) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2026-02-25 08:17 +0000
Re: IA-64 (was: Tonights Tradeoff) Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-02-23 13:44 +0200
large binary array searches (was: IA-64) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2026-02-24 09:50 +0000
Re: large binary array searches (was: IA-64) Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-02-24 17:23 +0200
Re: large binary array searches (was: IA-64) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2026-02-24 17:30 +0000
Re: large binary array searches (was: IA-64) Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-02-24 22:22 +0200
Re: large binary array searches (was: IA-64) Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-02-25 15:07 +0200
Re: large binary array searches (was: IA-64) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2026-02-25 18:32 +0000
Re: IA-64 (was: Tonights Tradeoff) Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2026-02-23 21:33 +0000
Re: IA-64 Stephen Fuld <sfuld@alumni.cmu.edu.invalid> - 2026-02-23 10:14 -0800
Re: IA-64 anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2026-02-24 11:25 +0000
Re: IA-64 Stephen Fuld <sfuld@alumni.cmu.edu.invalid> - 2026-02-24 07:51 -0800
Re: IA-64 anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2026-02-25 07:33 +0000
Re: IA-64 Stephen Fuld <sfuld@alumni.cmu.edu.invalid> - 2026-02-26 09:08 -0800
Re: IA-64 anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2026-02-27 09:52 +0000
Re: IA-64 Stephen Fuld <sfuld@alumni.cmu.edu.invalid> - 2026-02-28 10:08 -0800
Re: IA-64 MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-03-01 21:13 +0000
Re: IA-64 Stephen Fuld <sfuld@alumni.cmu.edu.invalid> - 2026-03-03 09:15 -0800
Re: IA-64 scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-03-03 17:37 +0000
Re: IA-64 Stephen Fuld <sfuld@alumni.cmu.edu.invalid> - 2026-03-03 09:53 -0800
Re: IA-64 MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-03-03 19:01 +0000
Re: IA-64 Stephen Fuld <sfuld@alumni.cmu.edu.invalid> - 2026-03-03 11:35 -0800
Re: IA-64 scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-03-03 21:55 +0000
Re: IA-64 Stephen Fuld <sfuld@alumni.cmu.edu.invalid> - 2026-03-04 07:44 -0800
Re: IA-64 scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-03-04 15:57 +0000
Re: IA-64 Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-03-04 20:06 +0200
Re: IA-64 scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-03-04 20:15 +0000
Re: IA-64 BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2026-03-06 14:06 -0600
Re: IA-64 MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-03-07 01:49 +0000
Re: IA-64 BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2026-03-07 15:03 -0600
Re: IA-64 Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-03-08 00:28 +0200
Re: Page size in root pointer Robert Finch <robfi680@gmail.com> - 2026-03-08 05:16 -0400
Re: Page size in root pointer MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-03-08 20:54 +0000
Re: Page size in root pointer BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2026-03-08 16:37 -0500
Re: Page size in root pointer Brett <ggtgp@yahoo.com> - 2026-03-09 04:50 +0000
Re: Page size in root pointer Robert Finch <robfi680@gmail.com> - 2026-03-09 03:01 -0400
Re: IA-64 David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-03-08 12:13 +0100
Re: IA-64 Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-03-08 13:37 +0200
Re: IA-64 David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-03-08 15:10 +0100
Re: IA-64 Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-03-08 18:30 +0200
Re: IA-64 David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-03-08 19:39 +0100
Re: IA-64 Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-03-08 21:03 +0200
Re: IA-64 Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2026-03-08 18:59 +0000
Re: IA-64 BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2026-03-08 14:34 -0500
Re: IA-64 Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2026-03-15 16:09 +0000
Re: IA-64 antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-03-17 01:11 +0000
Re: IA-64 Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2026-03-17 21:39 +0000
Re: IA-64 MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-03-17 21:57 +0000
Re: IA-64 antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-03-17 23:27 +0000
Re: IA-64 EricP <ThatWouldBeTelling@thevillage.com> - 2026-03-17 20:38 -0400
Re: IA-64 Robert Finch <robfi680@gmail.com> - 2026-03-17 21:00 -0400
Re: IA-64 MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-03-18 15:56 +0000
Re: IA-64 Terje Mathisen <terje.mathisen@tmsw.no> - 2026-03-18 17:30 +0100
Re: IA-64 BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2026-03-18 15:51 -0500
Re: IA-64 Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2026-03-18 21:41 +0000
Re: IA-64 Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2026-03-18 21:49 +0000
Re: IA-64 MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-03-17 19:20 +0000
Re: IA-64 EricP <ThatWouldBeTelling@thevillage.com> - 2026-03-17 15:48 -0400
Re: IA-64 MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-03-17 21:51 +0000
Re: IA-64 EricP <ThatWouldBeTelling@thevillage.com> - 2026-03-17 18:06 -0400
Re: IA-64 BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2026-03-18 15:14 -0500
Re: IA-64 MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-03-19 22:14 +0000
Re: IA-64 BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2026-03-20 04:49 -0500
Re: IA-64 Torbjorn Lindgren <tl@none.invalid> - 2026-03-20 14:03 +0000
Re: IA-64 Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-03-20 17:04 +0200
Re: IA-64 David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-03-20 16:26 +0100
Re: IA-64 Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-03-20 17:31 +0200
Re: IA-64 David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-03-20 18:56 +0100
Re: IA-64 David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-03-20 16:20 +0100
Re: IA-64 BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2026-03-20 14:39 -0500
Re: IA-64 David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-03-21 15:20 +0100
Re: IA-64 BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2026-03-21 13:31 -0500
Re: IA-64 BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2026-03-21 13:47 -0500
Re: IA-64 David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-03-22 13:05 +0100
Re: IA-64 MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-03-20 19:35 +0000
Re: IA-64 BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2026-03-20 15:09 -0500
Re: IA-64 David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-03-21 15:35 +0100
Re: IA-64 Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2026-03-21 23:51 +0000
Re: IA-64 Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-03-22 02:48 +0200
Re: IA-64 David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-03-22 13:20 +0100
Re: IA-64 Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2026-03-22 15:34 +0000
Re: IA-64 David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-03-22 16:59 +0100
Re: IA-64 David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-03-22 13:10 +0100
Re: IA-64 scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-03-22 16:34 +0000
Re: IA-64 David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-03-23 11:14 +0100
Re: IA-64 scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-03-20 21:19 +0000
Re: IA-64 Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-03-21 18:52 +0200
Re: IA-64 Terje Mathisen <terje.mathisen@tmsw.no> - 2026-03-21 18:44 +0100
Re: IA-64 Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-03-22 00:54 +0200
Re: IA-64 MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-03-08 21:08 +0000
Re: IA-64 Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2026-03-08 10:56 -0400
Re: IA-64 EricP <ThatWouldBeTelling@thevillage.com> - 2026-03-08 12:53 -0400
Re: IA-64 David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-03-08 19:43 +0100
Re: IA-64 MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-03-08 21:18 +0000
Re: IA-64 BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2026-03-08 17:06 -0500
Re: IA-64 EricP <ThatWouldBeTelling@thevillage.com> - 2026-03-08 17:18 -0400
multi-bit per cell RAM (was: IA-64) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2026-03-09 08:04 +0000
Re: IA-64 BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2026-03-08 14:19 -0500
Re: IA-64 MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-03-04 18:51 +0000
Re: IA-64 Torbjorn Lindgren <tl@none.invalid> - 2026-03-05 12:57 +0000
Re: IA-64 MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-02-27 18:55 +0000
Re: IA-64 antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-02-28 21:49 +0000
Re: IA-64 Stephen Fuld <sfuld@alumni.cmu.edu.invalid> - 2026-03-02 17:12 -0800
Re: IA-64 MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-03-03 02:34 +0000
Re: IA-64 Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2026-03-04 09:22 -0500
Re: IA-64 Stephen Fuld <sfuld@alumni.cmu.edu.invalid> - 2026-03-04 07:19 -0800
Re: IA-64 Terje Mathisen <terje.mathisen@tmsw.no> - 2026-03-04 19:03 +0100
Re: IA-64 Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-03-04 20:25 +0200
Re: IA-64 Terje Mathisen <terje.mathisen@tmsw.no> - 2026-03-04 19:38 +0100
Re: IA-64 Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-03-04 21:17 +0200
Re: IA-64 Stephen Fuld <sfuld@alumni.cmu.edu.invalid> - 2026-03-04 11:49 -0800
Re: IA-64 Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-03-07 23:48 +0200
Re: IA-64 Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2026-03-07 13:21 +0000
Re: IA-64 Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-03-07 19:03 +0200
Re: IA-64 anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2026-03-08 08:27 +0000
Re: IA-64 Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-03-08 13:15 +0200
Re: IA-64 anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2026-03-08 12:36 +0000
Re: IA-64 kegs@provalid.com (Kent Dickey) - 2026-03-04 21:07 +0000
Re: IA-64 Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-03-04 23:35 +0200
Re: IA-64 MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-03-04 23:46 +0000
Re: IA-64 Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-03-05 12:07 +0200
Re: IA-64 MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-03-05 17:49 +0000
Re: IA-64 Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-03-05 12:22 +0200
Re: IA-64 Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2026-03-07 13:29 +0000
Re: IA-64 Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-03-07 19:19 +0200
Re: IA-64 MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-03-07 19:07 +0000
Re: IA-64 Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-03-07 21:21 +0200
Re: IA-64 EricP <ThatWouldBeTelling@thevillage.com> - 2026-03-05 11:07 -0500
Re: IA-64 EricP <ThatWouldBeTelling@thevillage.com> - 2026-03-05 14:47 -0500
Re: IA-64 MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-03-06 20:08 +0000
Re: IA-64 Andy Valencia <vandys@vsta.org> - 2026-03-05 08:36 -0800
Re: IA-64 Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2026-03-05 12:02 -0500
Re: IA-64 scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-03-05 17:14 +0000
Re: IA-64 Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2026-03-05 14:18 -0500
Re: IA-64 Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-03-05 19:41 +0200
Re: IA-64 MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-03-05 18:10 +0000
Re: IA-64 kegs@provalid.com (Kent Dickey) - 2026-03-06 19:52 +0000
Re: IA-64 Andy Valencia <vandys@vsta.org> - 2026-03-07 15:53 -0800
Re: IA-64 Andy Valencia <vandys@vsta.org> - 2026-03-06 11:34 -0800
Re: IA-64 George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> - 2026-03-07 16:03 -0500
Re: IA-64 Terje Mathisen <terje.mathisen@tmsw.no> - 2026-03-09 22:42 +0100
Re: IA-64 Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-03-12 21:07 -0700
Re: IA-64 Terje Mathisen <terje.mathisen@tmsw.no> - 2026-03-14 16:27 +0100
Re: GPU books? Robert Finch <robfi680@gmail.com> - 2026-03-15 01:07 -0400
Re: GPU books? EricP <ThatWouldBeTelling@thevillage.com> - 2026-03-16 12:06 -0400
Re: GPU books? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-03-16 12:34 -0700
Re: GPU books? MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-03-17 17:57 +0000
Re: IA-64 Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-03-15 14:14 -0700
Re: IA-64 Terje Mathisen <terje.mathisen@tmsw.no> - 2026-03-16 15:35 +0100
Re: IA-64 Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-03-18 01:01 -0700
Re: IA-64 Terje Mathisen <terje.mathisen@tmsw.no> - 2026-03-18 17:38 +0100
Re: IA-64 David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-03-18 20:28 +0100
Re: IA-64 "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-03-18 21:05 -0700
Re: IA-64 Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-03-23 21:01 -0700
Re: IA-64 David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-03-24 09:24 +0100
Re: IA-64 antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-03-05 02:54 +0000
Re: IA-64 BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2026-02-26 14:54 -0600
Re: IA-64 MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-02-27 19:04 +0000
Re: IA-64 Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2026-02-27 19:31 +0000
Re: IA-64 Terje Mathisen <terje.mathisen@tmsw.no> - 2026-02-28 16:48 +0100
Re: IA-64 BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2026-03-01 05:39 -0600
Re: IA-64 Terje Mathisen <terje.mathisen@tmsw.no> - 2026-03-01 19:02 +0100
Re: IA-64 BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2026-03-01 18:05 -0600
Re: IA-64 MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-03-02 02:03 +0000
Re: IA-64 BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2026-03-03 04:24 -0600
Re: IA-64 (was: Tonights Tradeoff) jgd@cix.co.uk (John Dallman) - 2026-03-08 17:53 +0000
Re: IA-64 (was: Tonights Tradeoff) MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-03-08 21:15 +0000
Re: IA-64 (was: Tonights Tradeoff) BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2026-03-08 16:43 -0500
Re: IA-64 (was: Tonights Tradeoff) EricP <ThatWouldBeTelling@thevillage.com> - 2026-03-09 13:14 -0400
Re: IA-64 (was: Tonights Tradeoff) MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-03-09 19:30 +0000
Re: IA-64 (was: Tonights Tradeoff) EricP <ThatWouldBeTelling@thevillage.com> - 2026-03-10 13:04 -0400
Re: IA-64 (was: Tonights Tradeoff) MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-03-10 18:28 +0000
Re: IA-64 (was: Tonights Tradeoff) EricP <ThatWouldBeTelling@thevillage.com> - 2026-03-11 12:14 -0400
Re: IA-64 (was: Tonights Tradeoff) MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-03-11 21:37 +0000
Re: IA-64 (was: Tonights Tradeoff) EricP <ThatWouldBeTelling@thevillage.com> - 2026-03-12 10:56 -0400
Re: IA-64 (was: Tonights Tradeoff) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2026-03-12 18:15 +0000
Re: Tonights Tradeoff Paul Clayton <paaronclayton@gmail.com> - 2026-02-21 23:51 -0500
Re: Tonights Tradeoff MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-28 19:19 +0000
Re: Tonights Tradeoff Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2026-01-29 07:13 +0000
Re: Tonights Tradeoff Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2026-01-29 12:30 -0500
Re: Tonights Tradeoff Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2026-01-29 12:30 -0500
Re: Tonights Tradeoff Terje Mathisen <terje.mathisen@tmsw.no> - 2026-02-01 18:01 +0100
Re: Tonights Tradeoff Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2025-11-14 14:18 +0000
Re: Tonights Tradeoff anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2025-11-14 22:32 +0000
Re: Tonights Tradeoff BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2025-11-13 14:34 -0600
Re: Tonights Tradeoff anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2025-11-13 21:58 +0000
Re: Tonights Tradeoff MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-14 00:43 +0000
Re: Tonights Tradeoff BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2025-11-13 19:17 -0600
Re: Tonights Tradeoff MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-14 03:59 +0000
Re: Tonights Tradeoff BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2025-11-19 12:53 -0600
Multi-precision addition and architectural progress (was: Tonights ...) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2025-11-14 07:18 +0000
Re: Multi-precision addition and architectural progress (was: Tonights ...) MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-14 18:48 +0000
Re: Multi-precision addition and architectural progress (was: Tonights ...) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2025-11-14 22:38 +0000
Re: Multi-precision addition and architectural progress (was: Tonights ...) MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-15 01:22 +0000
Re: Multi-precision addition and architectural progress (was: Tonights ...) MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-15 01:28 +0000
Re: Multi-precision addition and architectural progress (was: Tonights ...) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2025-11-16 14:45 +0000
Re: Multi-precision addition and architectural progress Terje Mathisen <terje.mathisen@tmsw.no> - 2025-11-15 15:36 +0100
Re: Multi-precision addition and architectural progress MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-15 18:04 +0000
Re: Multi-precision addition and architectural progress anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2025-11-16 14:34 +0000
Re: Multi-precision addition and architectural progress MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-16 18:41 +0000
Multi-precision multiplication (was: Multi-precision addition ...) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2025-11-15 18:01 +0000
Re: Multi-precision addition and architectural progress Robert Finch <robfi680@gmail.com> - 2025-11-14 15:00 -0500
Re: Multi-precision addition and architectural progress anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2025-11-15 10:46 +0000
Re: Multi-precision addition and architectural progress Robert Finch <robfi680@gmail.com> - 2025-11-15 07:48 -0500
Re: Multi-precision addition and architectural progress MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-15 18:07 +0000
Re: Multi-precision addition and architectural progress anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2025-11-16 08:22 +0000
Re: Multi-precision addition and architectural progress MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-16 18:36 +0000
Re: Multi-precision addition and architectural progress Robert Finch <robfi680@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 02:49 -0500
Re: Multi-precision addition and architectural progress anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2025-11-17 08:33 +0000
Re: Multi-precision addition and architectural progress Robert Finch <robfi680@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 08:17 -0500
Re: Multi-precision addition and architectural progress anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2025-11-17 17:36 +0000
Re: Multi-precision addition and architectural progress MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-17 18:54 +0000
Re: Multi-precision addition and architectural progress Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2025-11-17 20:58 +0000
Re: Multi-precision addition and architectural progress Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-11-17 23:35 +0200
SPARC and register renaming (was: Multi-precision addition ...) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2025-11-18 15:16 +0000
Re: SPARC and register renaming Paul Clayton <paaronclayton@gmail.com> - 2026-02-16 17:24 -0500
Re: Multi-precision addition and architectural progress anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2025-11-18 08:58 +0000
Re: Multi-precision addition and architectural progress MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-17 18:45 +0000
Re: Multi-precision addition and architectural progress Robert Finch <robfi680@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 16:58 -0500
Re: Multi-precision addition and architectural progress MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-17 18:41 +0000
Re: Multi-precision addition and architectural progress BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2025-11-18 13:22 -0600
Re: Multi-precision addition and architectural progress BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2025-11-18 13:15 -0600
Re: Multi-precision addition and architectural progress Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2025-11-18 19:28 +0000
Re: Multi-precision addition and architectural progress MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-18 22:25 +0000
Re: Multi-precision addition and architectural progress anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2025-11-20 07:33 +0000
Re: Multi-precision addition and architectural progress antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2025-11-25 00:40 +0000
Re: Multi-precision addition and architectural progress anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2025-11-26 07:53 +0000
Re: Multi-precision addition and architectural progress Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-11-26 12:17 +0200
Re: Multi-precision addition and architectural progress anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2025-11-26 18:08 +0000
Re: Multi-precision addition and architectural progress MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-26 21:00 +0000
Re: Multi-precision addition and architectural progress Robert Finch <robfi680@gmail.com> - 2025-11-18 20:26 -0500
Re: Multi-precision addition and architectural progress MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-19 01:47 +0000
Re: Multi-precision addition and architectural progress Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2025-11-19 07:47 +0000
Re: Multi-precision addition and architectural progress anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2025-11-20 08:05 +0000
Re: Multi-precision addition and architectural progress Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2025-11-23 16:32 +0000
Re: Multi-precision addition and architectural progress scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-11-23 16:51 +0000
Re: Multi-precision addition and architectural progress anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2025-11-23 17:25 +0000
Re: Multi-precision addition and architectural progress Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2025-11-23 20:46 +0000
Re: Multi-precision addition and architectural progress anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2025-11-23 22:40 +0000
Re: Multi-precision addition and architectural progress Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2025-11-28 20:39 +0000
Re: Multi-precision addition and architectural progress anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2025-11-28 23:06 +0000
Re: Interrupt enable down-count Robert Finch <robfi680@gmail.com> - 2025-11-29 09:29 -0500
Re: Interrupt enable down-count Stephen Fuld <sfuld@alumni.cmu.edu.invalid> - 2025-11-29 07:37 -0800
Re: Interrupt enable down-count Robert Finch <robfi680@gmail.com> - 2025-11-29 13:28 -0500
Re: Interrupt enable down-count MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-29 19:23 +0000
Re: Interrupt enable down-count MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-29 19:05 +0000
Re: Interrupt enable down-count Robert Finch <robfi680@gmail.com> - 2025-11-29 15:42 -0500
Re: Interrupt enable down-count MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-29 22:17 +0000
Re: Interrupt enable down-count EricP <ThatWouldBeTelling@thevillage.com> - 2025-11-29 16:10 -0500
Re: Interrupt enable down-count MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-29 22:26 +0000
Re: Interrupt enable down-count Robert Finch <robfi680@gmail.com> - 2025-11-29 17:45 -0500
Re: Interrupt enable down-count MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-29 23:14 +0000
Re: Interrupt enable down-count Robert Finch <robfi680@gmail.com> - 2025-11-30 02:17 -0500
Re: Interrupt enable down-count Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2025-11-30 10:10 +0000
Re: Interrupt enable down-count Robert Finch <robfi680@gmail.com> - 2025-11-30 06:29 -0500
Re: Interrupt enable down-count Robert Finch <robfi680@gmail.com> - 2025-11-30 06:41 -0500
Re: Multi-precision addition and architectural progress Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2025-11-29 23:37 +0000
Re: Multi-precision addition and architectural progress anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2025-11-30 14:14 +0000
Re: Multi-precision addition and architectural progress Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2025-11-30 15:47 +0000
Re: Multi-precision addition and architectural progress anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2025-11-30 16:39 +0000
Re: Multi-precision addition and architectural progress Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2025-11-30 18:59 +0000
Re: Multi-precision addition and architectural progress anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2025-11-30 22:11 +0000
Re: Multi-precision addition and architectural progress Robert Finch <robfi680@gmail.com> - 2025-12-06 00:40 -0500
Re: Multi-precision addition and architectural progress anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2025-12-06 07:26 +0000
Re: Multi-precision addition and architectural progress Robert Finch <robfi680@gmail.com> - 2025-12-06 05:13 -0500
Re: Multi-precision addition and architectural progress MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-12-06 17:31 +0000
Re: Multi-precision addition and architectural progress MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-12-06 17:29 +0000
Re: Multi-precision addition and architectural progress Robert Finch <robfi680@gmail.com> - 2025-12-06 18:33 -0500
Re: Multi-precision addition and architectural progress Robert Finch <robfi680@gmail.com> - 2025-12-06 18:55 -0500
Re: Multi-precision addition and architectural progress MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-12-07 03:29 +0000
Re: Multi-precision addition and architectural progress scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-11-24 18:03 +0000
Re: Multi-precision addition and architectural progress anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2025-11-30 15:18 +0000
Re: Multi-precision addition and architectural progress MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-30 19:33 +0000
Re: Multi-precision addition and architectural progress Niklas Holsti <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid> - 2025-11-30 22:38 +0200
Re: Multi-precision addition and architectural progress anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2025-11-30 22:17 +0000
Re: Multi-precision addition and architectural progress MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-12-01 00:12 +0000
Memory ordering (Re: Multi-precision addition ...) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2025-12-01 07:56 +0000
Re: Memory ordering (Re: Multi-precision addition ...) Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-12-01 13:23 +0200
Re: Memory ordering (Re: Multi-precision addition ...) kegs@provalid.com (Kent Dickey) - 2025-12-04 16:54 +0000
Re: Memory ordering (Re: Multi-precision addition ...) MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-12-04 18:37 +0000
Re: Memory ordering (Re: Multi-precision addition ...) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-12-05 11:10 +0100
Re: Memory ordering (Re: Multi-precision addition ...) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2025-12-05 14:37 +0000
Re: Memory ordering (Re: Multi-precision addition ...) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-12-05 18:29 +0100
Re: Memory ordering (Re: Multi-precision addition ...) Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2025-12-15 12:30 -0500
Re: Memory ordering (Re: Multi-precision addition ...) MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-12-05 17:57 +0000
Re: Memory ordering (Re: Multi-precision addition ...) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-12-05 20:10 +0100
Re: Memory ordering (Re: Multi-precision addition ...) MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-12-05 20:54 +0000
Re: Memory ordering (Re: Multi-precision addition ...) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-12-05 14:55 -0800
Re: Memory ordering (Re: Multi-precision addition ...) MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-12-06 17:22 +0000
Re: Memory ordering (Re: Multi-precision addition ...) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-12-07 15:09 -0800
Re: Memory ordering (Re: Multi-precision addition ...) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-12-06 14:42 +0100
Re: Memory ordering (Re: Multi-precision addition ...) MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-12-06 17:44 +0000
Re: Memory ordering (Re: Multi-precision addition ...) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-12-08 10:07 +0100
Re: Memory ordering (Re: Multi-precision addition ...) MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-12-08 20:20 +0000
Re: Memory ordering (Re: Multi-precision addition ...) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-12-07 15:17 -0800
Re: Memory ordering (Re: Multi-precision addition ...) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-12-08 10:12 +0100
Re: Memory ordering (Re: Multi-precision addition ...) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-12-08 04:32 -0800
Re: Memory ordering (Re: Multi-precision addition ...) MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-12-08 20:06 +0000
Re: Memory ordering (Re: Multi-precision addition ...) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-12-08 20:15 +0000
Re: Memory ordering (Re: Multi-precision addition ...) MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-12-08 21:58 +0000
Re: Memory ordering (Re: Multi-precision addition ...) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-12-12 14:37 -0800
Re: Memory ordering (Re: Multi-precision addition ...) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-12-12 14:39 -0800
Re: Memory ordering (Re: Multi-precision addition ...) MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-12-12 23:39 +0000
Re: Memory ordering (Re: Multi-precision addition ...) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2025-12-13 09:31 +0000
Re: Memory ordering (Re: Multi-precision addition ...) MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-12-13 19:12 +0000
Re: Memory ordering (Re: Multi-precision addition ...) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-12-13 11:46 -0800
Re: Memory ordering (Re: Multi-precision addition ...) MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-12-13 21:58 +0000
Re: Memory ordering (Re: Multi-precision addition ...) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-12-12 14:47 -0800
Re: Memory ordering (Re: Multi-precision addition ...) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-12-06 17:16 +0000
Re: Memory ordering (Re: Multi-precision addition ...) MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-12-06 18:07 +0000
Re: Memory ordering (Re: Multi-precision addition ...) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-12-06 19:04 +0000
Re: Memory ordering (Re: Multi-precision addition ...) Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2025-12-06 21:36 +0000
Re: Memory ordering (Re: Multi-precision addition ...) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-12-07 16:08 -0800
Re: Memory ordering (Re: Multi-precision addition ...) MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-12-06 21:44 +0000
Re: Memory ordering (Re: Multi-precision addition ...) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-12-07 16:13 +0000
Re: Memory ordering (Re: Multi-precision addition ...) Robert Finch <robfi680@gmail.com> - 2025-12-08 07:25 -0500
Re: Memory ordering (Re: Multi-precision addition ...) Stephen Fuld <sfuld@alumni.cmu.edu.invalid> - 2025-12-08 08:23 -0800
Re: Memory ordering (Re: Multi-precision addition ...) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-12-08 17:14 +0000
Re: Memory ordering (Re: Multi-precision addition ...) MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-12-08 20:35 +0000
Re: Memory ordering (Re: Multi-precision addition ...) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-12-08 16:31 -0800
Re: Memory ordering (Re: Multi-precision addition ...) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-12-12 15:56 -0800
Re: Memory ordering (Re: Multi-precision addition ...) MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-12-13 19:03 +0000
Re: Memory ordering (Re: Multi-precision addition ...) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-12-13 11:49 -0800
Re: Memory ordering (Re: Multi-precision addition ...) MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-12-13 22:03 +0000
Re: double alias register renaming Robert Finch <robfi680@gmail.com> - 2025-12-14 05:13 -0500
Re: double alias register renaming MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-12-16 20:43 +0000
Re: Memory ordering (Re: Multi-precision addition ...) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-12-17 13:52 -0800
Re: Memory ordering (Re: Multi-precision addition ...) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-12-09 09:13 +0100
Re: Memory ordering (Re: Multi-precision addition ...) MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-12-09 19:15 +0000
Re: Memory ordering (Re: Multi-precision addition ...) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-12-09 20:51 +0100
Re: Memory ordering (Re: Multi-precision addition ...) MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-12-09 21:28 +0000
Re: Memory ordering (Re: Multi-precision addition ...) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-12-10 10:07 +0100
Re: Memory ordering (Re: Multi-precision addition ...) Stephen Fuld <sfuld@alumni.cmu.edu.invalid> - 2025-12-10 08:51 -0800
Re: Memory ordering (Re: Multi-precision addition ...) MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-12-10 20:10 +0000
Re: Memory ordering (Re: Multi-precision addition ...) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-12-11 10:05 +0100
Re: Memory ordering (Re: Multi-precision addition ...) MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-12-11 20:26 +0000
Re: Memory ordering (Re: Multi-precision addition ...) Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2025-12-11 20:47 +0000
Re: instruction ordering, was Memory ordering (Re: Multi-precision addition ...) John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2025-12-12 01:41 +0000
Re: instruction ordering, was Memory ordering (Re: Multi-precision addition ...) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-12-11 18:27 -0800
Re: instruction ordering, was Memory ordering (Re: Multi-precision addition ...) John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2025-12-12 02:48 +0000
Re: instruction ordering, was Memory ordering (Re: Multi-precision addition ...) MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-12-12 19:17 +0000
Re: instruction ordering, was Memory ordering (Re: Multi-precision addition ...) Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2025-12-12 21:02 +0000
Re: instruction ordering, was Memory ordering (Re: Multi-precision addition ...) MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-12-12 22:05 +0000
Re: instruction ordering, was Memory ordering (Re: Multi-precision addition ...) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-12-12 14:19 -0800
Re: instruction ordering, was Memory ordering (Re: Multi-precision addition ...) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-12-12 14:22 -0800
Re: instruction ordering, was Memory ordering (Re: Multi-precision addition ...) Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2025-12-12 08:14 +0000
Re: instruction ordering, was Memory ordering (Re: Multi-precision addition ...) cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2025-12-12 13:05 +0000
Re: instruction ordering, was Memory ordering (Re: Multi-precision addition ...) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-12-12 15:28 +0100
Re: instruction ordering, was Memory ordering (Re: Multi-precision addition ...) cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2025-12-12 16:25 +0000
Re: instruction ordering, was Memory ordering (Re: Multi-precision addition ...) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-12-12 21:12 +0100
Re: Memory ordering (Re: Multi-precision addition ...) Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-12-11 23:51 +0200
Re: Memory ordering (Re: Multi-precision addition ...) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-12-12 08:59 +0100
Re: Memory ordering (Re: Multi-precision addition ...) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-12-11 15:02 -0800
Re: Memory ordering (Re: Multi-precision addition ...) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-12-11 15:03 -0800
Re: Memory ordering (Re: Multi-precision addition ...) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-12-11 15:00 -0800
Re: Memory ordering (Re: Multi-precision addition ...) Stephen Fuld <sfuld@alumni.cmu.edu.invalid> - 2025-12-09 13:55 -0800
Re: Memory ordering (Re: Multi-precision addition ...) MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-12-09 22:52 +0000
Re: Memory ordering (Re: Multi-precision addition ...) MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-12-08 20:30 +0000
Re: Memory ordering (Re: Multi-precision addition ...) Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2025-12-07 09:30 +0000
Re: Memory ordering (Re: Multi-precision addition ...) Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-12-07 16:05 +0200
Re: Memory ordering (Re: Multi-precision addition ...) Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2025-12-07 16:55 +0000
Re: Memory ordering (Re: Multi-precision addition ...) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-12-07 16:28 +0000
Re: Memory ordering (Re: Multi-precision addition ...) EricP <ThatWouldBeTelling@thevillage.com> - 2025-12-07 12:19 -0500
Re: Memory ordering (Re: Multi-precision addition ...) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-12-12 15:52 -0800
Re: Memory ordering (Re: Multi-precision addition ...) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-12-07 16:36 -0800
Re: Memory ordering (Re: Multi-precision addition ...) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-12-05 15:03 -0800
Re: Memory ordering (Re: Multi-precision addition ...) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-12-07 14:51 -0800
Re: Memory ordering (Re: Multi-precision addition ...) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2025-12-07 17:48 +0000
Re: Memory ordering (Re: Multi-precision addition ...) EricP <ThatWouldBeTelling@thevillage.com> - 2025-12-01 14:07 -0500
Re: Memory ordering (Re: Multi-precision addition ...) MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-12-01 23:03 +0000
Re: Memory ordering (Re: Multi-precision addition ...) MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-12-01 22:50 +0000
Re: Unaligned Memory Access Robert Finch <robfi680@gmail.com> - 2025-12-02 07:10 -0500
Re: Unaligned Memory Access anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2025-12-02 18:50 +0000
Re: Unaligned Memory Access MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-12-02 19:55 +0000
Re: Unaligned Memory Access Robert Finch <robfi680@gmail.com> - 2025-12-02 21:20 -0500
Re: Unaligned Memory Access Paul Clayton <paaronclayton@gmail.com> - 2026-02-16 18:04 -0500
Re: Hardware hardware interrupt Robert Finch <robfi680@gmail.com> - 2026-02-18 01:04 -0500
Re: Unaligned Memory Access quadi <quadibloc@ca.invalid> - 2026-03-09 03:36 +0000
Re: Unaligned Memory Access Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2026-03-09 11:05 -0400
Re: Unaligned Memory Access John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2026-03-10 06:07 +0000
Re: Unaligned Memory Access "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-03-10 17:20 -0700
Re: Unaligned Memory Access Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2026-03-13 07:10 +0000
Re: Unaligned Memory Access MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-03-13 16:14 +0000
Re: Unaligned Memory Access Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2026-03-14 14:03 +0000
Re: Unaligned Memory Access John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2026-03-14 19:35 +0000
Re: Unaligned Memory Access Terje Mathisen <terje.mathisen@tmsw.no> - 2026-03-14 16:30 +0100
Re: Unaligned Memory Access BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2026-03-18 23:02 -0500
Re: Unaligned Memory Access MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-03-19 22:20 +0000
Re: Float multiplies Robert Finch <robfi680@gmail.com> - 2026-03-21 16:58 -0400
Re: Float multiplies MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-03-22 16:46 +0000
Re: Float multiplies Robert Finch <robfi680@gmail.com> - 2026-03-23 01:31 -0400
Re: Float multiplies BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2026-03-23 04:44 -0500
Re: Unaligned Memory Access anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2026-03-14 16:08 +0000
Re: Unaligned Memory Access Terje Mathisen <terje.mathisen@tmsw.no> - 2026-03-15 14:12 +0100
Re: Unaligned Memory Access Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-03-15 17:36 +0200
Unaligned stores (was: Unaligned Memory Access) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2026-03-15 17:30 +0000
Re: Unaligned Memory Access Terje Mathisen <terje.mathisen@tmsw.no> - 2026-03-16 15:09 +0100
Re: Unaligned Memory Access Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-03-16 18:01 +0200
Re: Unaligned Memory Access MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-03-17 17:55 +0000
Re: Unaligned Memory Access BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2026-03-10 16:41 -0500
Re: Unaligned Memory Access MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-03-11 00:18 +0000
Re: Unaligned Memory Access Terje Mathisen <terje.mathisen@tmsw.no> - 2026-03-11 16:40 +0100
Re: Unaligned Memory Access "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-03-11 12:40 -0700
Re: Unaligned Memory Access MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-03-11 21:40 +0000
Re: Unaligned Memory Access scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-03-11 21:44 +0000
Re: Unaligned Memory Access Terje Mathisen <terje.mathisen@tmsw.no> - 2026-03-14 16:23 +0100
Re: Unaligned Memory Access "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-03-16 12:38 -0700
Re: Multi-precision addition and architectural progress MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-23 20:16 +0000
Re: Multi-precision addition and architectural progress MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-23 20:15 +0000
Re: Multi-precision addition and architectural progress anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2025-11-20 07:55 +0000
Re: Tonights Tradeoff Terje Mathisen <terje.mathisen@tmsw.no> - 2025-11-14 15:57 +0100
Re: Tonights Tradeoff BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2025-11-14 14:39 -0600
Re: Tonights Tradeoff MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-13 19:04 +0000
Re: Tonights Tradeoff Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-11-21 15:31 +0200
Re: Tonights Tradeoff BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2025-11-21 13:36 -0600
Re: Tonights Tradeoff Robert Finch <robfi680@gmail.com> - 2025-11-21 22:09 -0500
Re: Tonights Tradeoff BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2025-11-22 04:54 -0600
Re: Tonights Tradeoff Robert Finch <robfi680@gmail.com> - 2025-11-22 12:45 -0500
Re: Tonights Tradeoff BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2025-11-22 14:29 -0600
Re: Tonights Tradeoff Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-11-22 18:50 +0200
Re: Tonights Tradeoff Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-12-16 19:47 +0200
Re: Tonights Tradeoff Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2025-12-16 17:51 +0000
Re: Tonights Tradeoff Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-12-17 12:02 +0200
Re: Tonights Tradeoff - write port history Robert Finch <robfi680@gmail.com> - 2025-12-18 21:33 -0500
Re: Tonights Tradeoff Terje Mathisen <terje.mathisen@tmsw.no> - 2025-11-04 08:50 +0100
Re: Tonights Tradeoff MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-03 19:03 +0000
Re: Tonights Tradeoff Robert Finch <robfi680@gmail.com> - 2025-11-05 01:41 -0500
Re: Tonights Tradeoff MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-05 20:30 +0000
Re: Tonights Tradeoff Robert Finch <robfi680@gmail.com> - 2025-11-02 09:39 -0500
Re: Tonights Tradeoff Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2025-11-03 18:47 +0000
branch splitting (was: Tonights Tradeoff) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2025-11-04 07:50 +0000
Re: branch splitting (was: Tonights Tradeoff) MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-04 19:15 +0000
Re: branch splitting Terje Mathisen <terje.mathisen@tmsw.no> - 2025-11-04 22:44 +0100
Re: branch splitting MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-05 00:44 +0000
Re: branch splitting BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2025-11-05 01:00 -0600
Re: branch splitting BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2025-11-05 01:38 -0600
Re: branch splitting MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-05 20:43 +0000
Re: branch splitting Paul Clayton <paaronclayton@gmail.com> - 2026-02-08 10:24 -0500
Re: branch splitting MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-02-09 19:20 +0000
Re: branch splitting Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2026-04-05 06:49 +0000
Re: branch splitting MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-04-05 20:35 +0000
Re: branch splitting Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2026-04-06 05:11 +0000
Re: branch splitting MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-04-06 16:24 +0000
Re: round mode register Robert Finch <robfi680@gmail.com> - 2026-04-07 22:53 -0400
Re: branch splitting Paul Clayton <paaronclayton@gmail.com> - 2026-02-16 16:14 -0500
Re: branch splitting BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2026-02-18 14:45 -0600
Re: branch splitting Paul Clayton <paaronclayton@gmail.com> - 2026-02-23 17:17 -0500
Re: branch splitting BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2026-02-25 17:40 -0600
Re: branch splitting Stephen Fuld <sfuld@alumni.cmu.edu.invalid> - 2025-11-04 15:46 -0800
Re: branch splitting MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-05 02:51 +0000
Re: branch splitting anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2025-11-05 05:17 +0000
Re: branch splitting Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2025-11-05 06:44 +0000
Re: branch splitting anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2025-11-05 06:55 +0000
Re: branch splitting EricP <ThatWouldBeTelling@thevillage.com> - 2025-11-05 10:49 -0500
Re: branch splitting anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2025-11-06 18:14 +0000
Re: branch splitting Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2025-11-06 20:04 +0000
Re: branch splitting anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2025-11-07 10:32 +0000
Re: branch splitting EricP <ThatWouldBeTelling@thevillage.com> - 2025-11-06 16:24 -0500
Re: branch splitting MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-06 22:53 +0000
Re: branch splitting EricP <ThatWouldBeTelling@thevillage.com> - 2025-11-06 20:10 -0500
Re: branch splitting Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2025-11-05 18:03 +0000
Re: branch splitting anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2025-11-06 18:17 +0000
Re: branch splitting Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2025-11-06 20:07 +0000
Re: branch splitting MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-06 20:24 +0000
Re: branch splitting Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2025-11-07 06:55 +0000
Re: branch splitting Stephen Fuld <sfuld@alumni.cmu.edu.invalid> - 2025-11-04 22:53 -0800
Re: branch splitting anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2025-11-06 08:46 +0000
Re: branch splitting Niklas Holsti <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid> - 2025-11-06 12:37 +0200
Re: branch splitting anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2025-11-07 08:08 +0000
Re: branch splitting Stephen Fuld <sfuld@alumni.cmu.edu.invalid> - 2025-11-06 07:57 -0800
Re: branch splitting anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2025-11-07 10:09 +0000
Re: branch splitting Stephen Fuld <sfuld@alumni.cmu.edu.invalid> - 2025-11-07 08:26 -0800
Re: branch splitting anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2025-11-07 17:15 +0000
Re: branch splitting Stephen Fuld <sfuld@alumni.cmu.edu.invalid> - 2025-11-07 10:45 -0800
Re: branch splitting EricP <ThatWouldBeTelling@thevillage.com> - 2025-11-08 10:31 -0500
Re: branch splitting MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-08 18:13 +0000
Re: branch splitting Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-11-08 21:47 +0200
Re: branch splitting scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-11-09 17:06 +0000
Re: PDP-8 history, branch splitting John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2025-11-09 20:00 +0000
Re: PDP-8 history, branch splitting MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-09 21:14 +0000
Re: PDP-8 history, branch splitting anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2025-11-10 07:46 +0000
Re: PDP-8 history, branch splitting scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-11-10 14:52 +0000
Re: PDP-8 history, branch splitting John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2025-11-10 18:53 +0000
Re: branch splitting Terje Mathisen <terje.mathisen@tmsw.no> - 2025-11-10 08:27 +0100
Re: branch splitting anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2025-11-08 18:25 +0000
Re: branch splitting Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-11-08 20:56 +0200
Re: jumping around, branch splitting John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2025-11-08 21:08 +0000
Re: jumping around, branch splitting EricP <ThatWouldBeTelling@thevillage.com> - 2025-11-09 13:01 -0500
Re: jumping around, branch splitting John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2025-11-09 20:18 +0000
Re: jumping around, branch splitting MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-09 21:11 +0000
Re: jumping around, branch splitting Niklas Holsti <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid> - 2025-11-11 19:58 +0200
Re: jumping around, branch splitting scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-11-11 18:48 +0000
Re: indirect chains, jumping around, branch splitting John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2025-11-11 21:10 +0000
Re: indirect chains, jumping around, branch splitting Stephen Fuld <sfuld@alumni.cmu.edu.invalid> - 2025-11-11 16:06 -0800
Re: branch splitting John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2025-11-08 21:07 +0000
Re: branch splitting MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-06 18:45 +0000
Re: label variables, was branch splitting John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2025-11-06 22:09 +0000
Re: label variables, was branch splitting anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2025-11-07 15:26 +0000
Re: label variables, was branch splitting Bill Findlay <findlaybill@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2025-11-07 17:54 +0000
Re: branch splitting Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2025-11-08 10:02 +0000
Re: branch splitting MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-08 18:04 +0000
Re: branch splitting Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2025-11-08 19:32 +0000
Re: branch splitting anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2025-11-08 18:37 +0000
Re: goto, was branch splitting John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2025-11-08 21:14 +0000
Re: branch splitting BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2025-11-05 02:01 -0600
Re: branch splitting MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-05 21:04 +0000
Re: branch splitting Niklas Holsti <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid> - 2025-11-05 17:26 +0200
Re: branch splitting BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2025-11-05 10:23 -0600
Re: branch splitting scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-11-05 17:22 +0000
Re: branch splitting Niklas Holsti <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid> - 2025-11-05 21:30 +0200
Re: branch splitting MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-05 21:28 +0000
Re: branch splitting Niklas Holsti <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid> - 2025-11-06 00:45 +0200
Re: branch splitting MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-06 18:28 +0000
Re: branch splitting Niklas Holsti <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid> - 2025-11-11 18:50 +0200
Re: branch splitting EricP <ThatWouldBeTelling@thevillage.com> - 2025-11-11 14:23 -0500
Re: branch splitting anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2025-11-11 20:44 +0000
Re: branch splitting EricP <ThatWouldBeTelling@thevillage.com> - 2025-11-11 21:16 -0500
Re: branch splitting anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2025-11-13 08:42 +0000
Re: branch splitting Bernd Linsel <bl1-thispartdoesnotbelonghere@gmx.com> - 2025-11-13 19:32 +0100
Re: branch splitting antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2025-11-13 01:35 +0000
Re: branch splitting anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2025-11-13 09:45 +0000
Re: branch splitting antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2025-11-13 17:35 +0000
Re: branch splitting MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-11 19:46 +0000
Re: branch splitting Stephen Fuld <sfuld@alumni.cmu.edu.invalid> - 2025-11-11 15:55 -0800
Re: branch splitting MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-12 00:31 +0000
Re: branch splitting Stephen Fuld <sfuld@alumni.cmu.edu.invalid> - 2025-11-11 17:18 -0800
Re: branch splitting Niklas Holsti <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid> - 2025-11-12 21:56 +0200
Re: branch splitting MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-12 20:25 +0000
Re: branch splitting anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2025-11-06 22:21 +0000
Re: branch splitting MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-05 21:24 +0000
Re: branch splitting Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-11-06 11:43 +0200
Re: branch splitting Niklas Holsti <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid> - 2025-11-06 12:11 +0200
Re: branch splitting Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-11-06 13:14 +0200
Re: branch splitting anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2025-11-07 08:06 +0000
Re: branch splitting anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2025-11-06 17:52 +0000
Re: branch splitting Terje Mathisen <terje.mathisen@tmsw.no> - 2025-11-05 15:27 +0100
Re: Tonights Tradeoff Robert Finch <robfi680@gmail.com> - 2025-11-05 01:47 -0500
Re: Tonights Tradeoff Robert Finch <robfi680@gmail.com> - 2025-11-05 02:06 -0500
Re: Tonights Tradeoff MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-05 20:52 +0000
Re: Tonights Tradeoff Robert Finch <robfi680@gmail.com> - 2025-11-05 20:41 -0500
Re: Tonights Tradeoff Paul Clayton <paaronclayton@gmail.com> - 2026-02-07 21:49 -0500
Re: Tonights Tradeoff MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-02-09 19:09 +0000
Re: Tonights Tradeoff MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-03 19:13 +0000
Re: Tonights Tradeoff - constants / routing Robert Finch <robfi680@gmail.com> - 2025-11-05 09:56 -0500
Re: Tonights Tradeoff - constants / routing MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-05 21:21 +0000
Re: Tonights Tradeoff - constants / routing Robert Finch <robfi680@gmail.com> - 2025-11-05 21:49 -0500
Re: Tonights Tradeoff - constants / routing MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-06 18:36 +0000
Re: Tonights Tradeoff - constants / routing Stephen Fuld <sfuld@alumni.cmu.edu.invalid> - 2025-11-05 19:20 -0800
Re: Tonights Tradeoff - constants / routing MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-06 18:39 +0000
Re: Tonights Tradeoff - constants / routing Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2025-11-08 14:11 +0000
Re: Tonights Tradeoff - constants / routing MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-08 18:08 +0000
Re: Tonights Tradeoff - constants / routing Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2025-11-06 19:38 +0000
Re: Tonights Tradeoff - constants / routing Stephen Fuld <sfuld@alumni.cmu.edu.invalid> - 2025-11-06 12:14 -0800
Re: Tonights Tradeoff - constants / routing Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2025-11-07 17:29 +0000
Re: Tonights Tradeoff - constants / routing Stephen Fuld <sfuld@alumni.cmu.edu.invalid> - 2025-11-09 14:54 -0800
Re: Tonights Tradeoff - constants / routing MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-10 02:00 +0000
Re: Tonights Tradeoff - constants / routing Stephen Fuld <sfuld@alumni.cmu.edu.invalid> - 2025-11-09 20:03 -0800
Re: Tonights Tradeoff - constants / routing MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-06 21:59 +0000
Re: Tonights Tradeoff - constants / routing kegs@provalid.com (Kent Dickey) - 2025-11-12 06:20 +0000
Re: Tonights Tradeoff - constants / routing Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2025-11-12 08:01 +0000
Re: Tonights Tradeoff - constants / routing MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-12 19:22 +0000
Re: Tonights Tradeoff / Fusing branch ops Robert Finch <robfi680@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 07:44 -0500
Re: Tonights Tradeoff - Cache-line constants Robert Finch <robfi680@gmail.com> - 2025-11-07 22:30 -0500
Re: Tonights Tradeoff - NaN boxed precisions Robert Finch <robfi680@gmail.com> - 2025-11-10 21:56 -0500
Re: Tonights Tradeoff - NaN boxed precisions MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-11 19:30 +0000
Re: Tonights Tradeoff - NaN boxed precisions Robert Finch <robfi680@gmail.com> - 2025-11-11 21:42 -0500
Re: Tonights Tradeoff - NaN boxed precisions MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-23 03:20 +0000
Re: Tonights Tradeoff - NaN boxed precisions Robert Finch <robfi680@gmail.com> - 2025-11-22 23:16 -0500
Re: Tonights Tradeoff - NaN boxed precisions Robert Finch <robfi680@gmail.com> - 2025-11-22 23:36 -0500
Re: Tonights Tradeoff - NaN boxed precisions Robert Finch <robfi680@gmail.com> - 2025-11-23 07:04 -0500
Re: Tonights Tradeoff - NaN boxed precisions MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-23 20:13 +0000
Re: Tonights Tradeoff - NaN boxed precisions Robert Finch <robfi680@gmail.com> - 2025-11-23 23:58 -0500
Re: Tonights Tradeoff - NaN boxed precisions MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-24 20:00 +0000
Re: Tonights Tradeoff - NaN boxed precisions Robert Finch <robfi680@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 21:08 -0500
Re: Tonights Tradeoff - NaN boxed precisions MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-26 20:57 +0000
Re: Tonights Tradeoff - NaN boxed precisions scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-11-26 22:16 +0000
Re: Tonights Tradeoff - NaN boxed precisions "Brian G. Lucas" <bagel99@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 17:20 -0500
Re: Tonights Tradeoff - NaN boxed precisions scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-11-26 22:29 +0000
Re: Tonights Tradeoff - NaN boxed precisions MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-26 23:53 +0000
Re: Tonights Tradeoff - NaN boxed precisions MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-26 23:46 +0000
Re: Tonights Tradeoff - NaN boxed precisions anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2025-11-28 07:21 +0000
Re: Tonights Tradeoff - NaN boxed precisions MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-28 20:05 +0000
Re: Tonights Tradeoff - NaN boxed precisions Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2025-11-28 06:45 +0000
Re: Tonights Tradeoff - NaN boxed precisions Robert Finch <robfi680@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 18:19 -0500
Re: Tonights Tradeoff - NaN boxed precisions MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-27 00:08 +0000
Re: Tonights Tradeoff - NaN boxed precisions Robert Finch <robfi680@gmail.com> - 2025-11-27 00:36 -0500
Re: Tonights Tradeoff - NaN boxed precisions MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-28 19:35 +0000
Re: Tonights Tradeoff - NaN boxed precisions George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> - 2025-11-27 00:44 -0500
Re: Tonights Tradeoff - NaN boxed precisions Terje Mathisen <terje.mathisen@tmsw.no> - 2025-11-26 22:26 +0100
Re: Tonights Tradeoff - NaN boxed precisions MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-26 21:58 +0000
Re: Tonights Tradeoff - NaN boxed precisions kegs@provalid.com (Kent Dickey) - 2025-11-27 15:50 +0000
Re: Tonights Tradeoff - NaN boxed precisions Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-11-27 19:16 +0200
Re: Tonights Tradeoff - NaN boxed precisions Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2025-11-28 07:17 +0000
Re: Tonights Tradeoff - NaN boxed precisions Robert Finch <robfi680@gmail.com> - 2025-11-28 02:59 -0500
Re: Tonights Tradeoff - NaN boxed precisions EricP <ThatWouldBeTelling@thevillage.com> - 2025-11-28 12:56 -0500
Re: Tonights Tradeoff - NaN boxed precisions MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-28 20:41 +0000
Re: Tonights Tradeoff - NaN boxed precisions MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-28 20:09 +0000
Re: Tonights Tradeoff - NaN boxed precisions MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-28 19:49 +0000
Re: Tonights Tradeoff - NaN boxed precisions kegs@provalid.com (Kent Dickey) - 2025-11-29 15:48 +0000
Re: Tonights Tradeoff - NaN boxed precisions Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2025-11-29 19:11 +0000
Re: Tonights Tradeoff - NaN boxed precisions EricP <ThatWouldBeTelling@thevillage.com> - 2025-11-29 15:08 -0500
Re: Tonights Tradeoff - NaN boxed precisions MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-29 22:07 +0000
Re: Tonights Tradeoff - NaN boxed precisions Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2025-11-11 21:18 +0000
Re: Tonights Tradeoff - NaN boxed precisions Robert Finch <robfi680@gmail.com> - 2025-11-11 21:46 -0500
Re: Tonights Tradeoff - NaN boxed precisions Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2025-11-12 07:19 +0000
Re: Tonights Tradeoff - NaN boxed precisions MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-12 20:27 +0000
Re: Tonights Tradeoff - NaN boxed precisions Robert Finch <robfi680@gmail.com> - 2025-11-12 23:59 -0500
Re: Tonights Tradeoff - NaN boxed precisions Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2025-11-13 07:24 +0000
Page 4 of 46 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 46 Next page →
| From | anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-21 06:05 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: auto predicating branches |
| Message-ID | <2025Apr21.080532@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> |
| In reply to | #111489 |
Robert Finch <robfi680@gmail.com> writes: >Having branches automatically convert into >predicates when they branch forward a short distance <7 instructions. If-conversion in hardware is a good idea, if done well, because it involves issues that tend to be unknown to compilers: * How predictable is the condition? If the condition is very well predictable, if-conversion is not a good idea, because it turns the control dependency (which does not cost latency when the prediction is correct) into a data dependency. Moreover, in this case the if-conversion increases the resource consumption. Compilers are not good at predicting the predictability AFAIK. * Is the condition available before or after the original data dependencies? And if afterwards, by how many cycles? If it is afterwards and the branch prediction would be correct, the if-conversion means that the result of the instruction is available later, which may reduce IPC. OTOH, if the branch prediction would be incorrect, the recovery also depends on when the condition becomes available, and the total latency is higher in the case of no if-conversion. The compiler may do an ok job at predicting whether a condition is available before or after the original data dependencies (I don't know a paper that evaluates that), but without knowing about the prediction accuracy of a specific condition that does not help much. So the hardware should take predictability of a condition and the availability of the condition into consideration for if-conversion. What about reverse if-conversion in hardware, i.e., converting predicated instructions and the like (conditional moves, if-then-else instructions and the instructions they control) into branch-predicted phantom branches and eliminating the data dependency on the condition from the instruction. For performance, one might consider reverse if-conversion, because the same considerations apply; however, there is also a security aspect: programmers have used these instructions instead of branches to produce constant-time code to avoid timing side channels of code that deals with secrets; and the discovery of Spectre has shown additional timing side channels of branches. Because you cannot be sure that the predicated instruction is there for security reasons, you must not use reverse if-conversion in hardware. - anton -- 'Anyone trying for "industrial quality" ISA should avoid undefined behavior.' Mitch Alsup, <c17fcd89-f024-40e7-a594-88a85ac10d20o@googlegroups.com>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-21 13:39 +0000 |
| Subject | Is an instruction on the critical path? (was: auto predicating branches) |
| Message-ID | <2025Apr21.153925@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> |
| In reply to | #111490 |
anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) writes: >So the hardware should take predictability of a condition and the >availability of the condition into consideration for if-conversion. Another criterion would be whether one of the potentially if-converted instructions is on the critical data-dependency path. If none of them are, additional latency (if any) from if-conversion may be less of an issue. OTOH, it may also mean that the code is resource-limited rather than dependency-limited, and that one should avoid if-conversion in order to avoid additional resource consumption (and of course prediction accuracy also plays into these considerations). This made me think how one could determine whether an instruction is on the critical path. If an instruction X is committed, and the only instructions later in the reorder buffer are data-flow successors of X, then X is obviously on the critical path. An instruction Y that delivers the last input that releases X from the scheduler into the functional unit is also on the critical path; this is transitive, and several results may arrive in the same cycle. Marking X as a critical instruction is relatively easy, although one might also count how many times of all dynamic instances of the instruction were critical. Marking the critical data-flow predecessors is harder, especially across several levels (not to mention all levels); one way is to do it over time: when an instruction V delivers a dependency that releases an instruction W from the scheduler that is already marked as critical, V is marked as critical as well. The same instruction may be on the critical path in one execution, but not in another execution, due to cache hits, or differences in control flow. The approach outlined above only works correctly if W is always on the critical path. V should probably only marked as critical if the number of critical executions of W relative to the overall executions of W is high. Showing the critical path through performance counters might help programmers improve the performance of their programs. - anton -- 'Anyone trying for "industrial quality" ISA should avoid undefined behavior.' Mitch Alsup, <c17fcd89-f024-40e7-a594-88a85ac10d20o@googlegroups.com>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-21 17:29 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: auto predicating branches |
| Message-ID | <d47cdad26528b4d2309ac9df60120315@www.novabbs.org> |
| In reply to | #111490 |
On Mon, 21 Apr 2025 6:05:32 +0000, Anton Ertl wrote: > Robert Finch <robfi680@gmail.com> writes: >>Having branches automatically convert into >>predicates when they branch forward a short distance <7 instructions. > > If-conversion in hardware is a good idea, if done well, because it > involves issues that tend to be unknown to compilers: I had little trouble teaching Brian how to put if-conversion into the compiler with my PRED instructions. Alleviating HW from having to bother other than being able to execute PREDicated clauses. > * How predictable is the condition? If the condition is very well > predictable, if-conversion is not a good idea, because it turns the > control dependency (which does not cost latency when the prediction > is correct) into a data dependency. Moreover, in this case the > if-conversion increases the resource consumption. Compilers are not > good at predicting the predictability AFAIK. Rather than base the choice on the predictability of the condition, It is based on whether FETCH will pass the join-point before the condition resolves. On an 8-wide machine this might be "THE next cycle". > * Is the condition available before or after the original data > dependencies? And if afterwards, by how many cycles? If it is > afterwards and the branch prediction would be correct, the > if-conversion means that the result of the instruction is available > later, which may reduce IPC. Generally, it only adds latency--if the execution window is not staled at either end this does not harm IPC. > OTOH, if the branch prediction would > be incorrect, the recovery also depends on when the condition > becomes available, There is no "recovery" from PREDication, just one clause getting nullified. > and the total latency is higher in the case of no > if-conversion. The compiler may do an ok job at predicting whether > a condition is available before or after the original data > dependencies (I don't know a paper that evaluates that), but without > knowing about the prediction accuracy of a specific condition that > does not help much. > > So the hardware should take predictability of a condition and the > availability of the condition into consideration for if-conversion. My argument is that this is a SW decision (in the compiler) not a HW decision (other than providing the PREDs). Since PREDs are not predicted (unless you think they are predicted BOTH ways) they do not diminish the performance of the branch predictors. > What about reverse if-conversion in hardware, i.e., converting > predicated instructions and the like (conditional moves, if-then-else > instructions and the instructions they control) into branch-predicted > phantom branches and eliminating the data dependency on the condition > from the instruction. The compiler choose PRED because FETCH reaches the join-point prior to the branch resolving. PRED is almost always faster--and when it has both then-clause and else-clause, it always saves a branch instruction (jumping over the else-clause). > For performance, one might consider reverse if-conversion, because the > same considerations apply; however, there is also a security aspect: > programmers have used these instructions instead of branches to > produce constant-time code to avoid timing side channels of code that > deals with secrets; and the discovery of Spectre has shown additional > timing side channels of branches. Because you cannot be sure that the > predicated instruction is there for security reasons, you must not use > reverse if-conversion in hardware. > > - anton
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-22 05:10 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: auto predicating branches |
| Message-ID | <2025Apr22.071010@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> |
| In reply to | #111492 |
mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) writes: >On Mon, 21 Apr 2025 6:05:32 +0000, Anton Ertl wrote: > >> Robert Finch <robfi680@gmail.com> writes: >>>Having branches automatically convert into >>>predicates when they branch forward a short distance <7 instructions. >> >> If-conversion in hardware is a good idea, if done well, because it >> involves issues that tend to be unknown to compilers: > >I had little trouble teaching Brian how to put if-conversion into the >compiler with my PRED instructions. Alleviating HW from having to bother >other than being able to execute PREDicated clauses. Compilers certainly can perform if-conversion, and there have been papers about that for at least 30 years, but compilers do not know when if-conversion is profitable. E.g., "branchless" (if-converted) binary search can be faster than a branching one when the searched array is cached at a close-enough level, but slower when most of the accesses miss the close caches <https://stackoverflow.com/questions/11360831/about-the-branchless-binary-search>. >> * How predictable is the condition? If the condition is very well >> predictable, if-conversion is not a good idea, because it turns the >> control dependency (which does not cost latency when the prediction >> is correct) into a data dependency. Moreover, in this case the >> if-conversion increases the resource consumption. Compilers are not >> good at predicting the predictability AFAIK. > >Rather than base the choice on the predictability of the condition, >It is based on whether FETCH will pass the join-point before the >condition resolves. On an 8-wide machine this might be "THE next >cycle". On a CPU with out-of-order execution, the instruction fetcher often runs many dozens of instructions ahead of the functional units which produce the conditions, so your criterion could cover pretty big IFs And, given that you want the compiler to do it, the compiler would have to know about that. Ok, what decision will you take in what case, and why? >> * Is the condition available before or after the original data >> dependencies? And if afterwards, by how many cycles? If it is >> afterwards and the branch prediction would be correct, the >> if-conversion means that the result of the instruction is available >> later, which may reduce IPC. > >Generally, it only adds latency--if the execution window is not staled >at either end this does not harm IPC. If the additional latency is on the critical path and execution is dependency-limited, this reduces IPC. And yes, this will result in the buffers (especially the schedulers) filling up and stalling the front end. >> OTOH, if the branch prediction would >> be incorrect, the recovery also depends on when the condition >> becomes available, > >There is no "recovery" from PREDication, just one clause getting >nullified. I apparently wrote that in a misunderstandable way. Here's another attempt: When comparing the branching variant to the predicated (if-converted) variant, if the branching variant would be mispredicted, it is always at a disadvantage wrt. latency compared to the predicated variant, because the branching variant restarts from the instruction fetch when the condition becomes available, while the predicated variant is already fetched and decoded and waits in a scheduler for the condition. Note that in the binary-search case linked-to above, that's also the case, but in the branchy version the benefit comes from the correct predictions and the lack of data-dependencies between the loads: In those cases the cache-missing load does not depend on the previous cache-missing load (unlike the branchless version), resulting in an overall shorter latency. >> and the total latency is higher in the case of no >> if-conversion. The compiler may do an ok job at predicting whether >> a condition is available before or after the original data >> dependencies (I don't know a paper that evaluates that), but without >> knowing about the prediction accuracy of a specific condition that >> does not help much. >> >> So the hardware should take predictability of a condition and the >> availability of the condition into consideration for if-conversion. > >My argument is that this is a SW decision (in the compiler) not a >HW decision (other than providing the PREDs). That's a position, not an argument. Do you have an argument for your position? >Since PREDs are not >predicted (unless you think they are predicted BOTH ways) they do >not diminish the performance of the branch predictors. Nor increase it. But it sounds like you think that the compiler should choose predication when the condition is not particularly predictable. How should the compiler know that? >The compiler choose PRED because FETCH reaches the join-point prior >to the branch resolving. PRED is almost always faster--and when >it has both then-clause and else-clause, it always saves a branch >instruction (jumping over the else-clause). It appears that you have an underpowered front end in mind. Even in the wide machines of today and without predication, the front end normally does not have a problem fetching at least as many instructions as the rest of the machine can handle, as long as the predictions are correct. Even if the instruction fetcher cannot fetch the full width in one cycle due to having more taken branches than the instruction fetcher can handle or some other hiccup, this is usually made up by delivering more instructions in other cycles than the rest of the CPU can handle. E.g., Skymont <https://old.chipsandcheese.com/2024/06/15/intel-details-skymont/> fetches from three sequential streams, 3*32bytes/cycle, and decodes into 3*3 uops/cycle and stores them in 3 32-entry uop queues; the renamer consumes 8 instructions from these queues, so as long as the predictions are correct and the average fetching and decoding is >8 uops/cycle, the renamer will rarely see fewer than 8 uops available, even if there is the occasional cycle where the taken branches are so dense that the instruction fetcher cannot deliver enough relevant bytes to the instruction decoder. - anton -- 'Anyone trying for "industrial quality" ISA should avoid undefined behavior.' Mitch Alsup, <c17fcd89-f024-40e7-a594-88a85ac10d20o@googlegroups.com>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | EricP <ThatWouldBeTelling@thevillage.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-22 11:23 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: auto predicating branches |
| Message-ID | <DwONP.2213540$eNx6.1757109@fx14.iad> |
| In reply to | #111494 |
Anton Ertl wrote: > mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) writes: >> On Mon, 21 Apr 2025 6:05:32 +0000, Anton Ertl wrote: >> >>> Robert Finch <robfi680@gmail.com> writes: >>>> Having branches automatically convert into >>>> predicates when they branch forward a short distance <7 instructions. >>> If-conversion in hardware is a good idea, if done well, because it >>> involves issues that tend to be unknown to compilers: >> I had little trouble teaching Brian how to put if-conversion into the >> compiler with my PRED instructions. Alleviating HW from having to bother >> other than being able to execute PREDicated clauses. > > Compilers certainly can perform if-conversion, and there have been > papers about that for at least 30 years, but compilers do not know > when if-conversion is profitable. E.g., "branchless" (if-converted) > binary search can be faster than a branching one when the searched > array is cached at a close-enough level, but slower when most of the > accesses miss the close caches > <https://stackoverflow.com/questions/11360831/about-the-branchless-binary-search>. I'm missing something because the first answer by BeeOnRope looks wrong. Unfortunately they don't show both pieces of code and the asm, but a branching binary search to me looks just as load data dependent as it recalculates middle each iteration and the array index is array[middle]. Assuming the branching version is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_search#Procedure If branch prediction is always correct, the branching version builds an instruction queue that is a long chain of scaled indexed loads where the load index is data dependent on the prior iteration load value. As each load finishes the next index is calculated and next load started, and the chain collapses serially. But that is exactly what the branchless version also does. The difference is that the branching version sometimes DOES mispredict, so purges and rebuilds the IQ for each mispredict. But what it purges for the current iteration is just an INC or DEC instruction, either L = m+1 or R = m-1, PLUS everything prefetched in IQ that followed. Assuming both versions have the same number of memory accesses[*], it looks to me that the branchless version should always win or tie. [*] I want to see the asm because Intel's CMOV always executes the operand operation, then tosses the result if the predicate is false. That means that if it does CMOVGT rax,[middle] it always does the [middle] memory load and then conditionally tosses the value. It may be that the branchless version is actually doing more memory accesses which is why it is slower.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-22 17:31 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: auto predicating branches |
| Message-ID | <2025Apr22.193103@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> |
| In reply to | #111495 |
EricP <ThatWouldBeTelling@thevillage.com> writes:
>Anton Ertl wrote:
>> Compilers certainly can perform if-conversion, and there have been
>> papers about that for at least 30 years, but compilers do not know
>> when if-conversion is profitable. E.g., "branchless" (if-converted)
>> binary search can be faster than a branching one when the searched
>> array is cached at a close-enough level, but slower when most of the
>> accesses miss the close caches
>> <https://stackoverflow.com/questions/11360831/about-the-branchless-binary-search>.
>
>I'm missing something because the first answer by BeeOnRope looks wrong.
>Unfortunately they don't show both pieces of code and the asm,
>but a branching binary search to me looks just as load data dependent as it
>recalculates middle each iteration and the array index is array[middle].
Here's the branchless version:
while (n > 1) {
int middle = n/2;
base += (needle < *base[middle]) ? 0 : middle;
n -= middle;
}
The branching version would then be:
while (n > 1) {
int middle = n/2;
if (needle >= *base[middle])
base += middle;
n -= middle;
}
In the branching version we have the following loop recurrences:
1) middle = n/2; n -= middle
2) base += middle;
Recurrence 1 costs a few cycles per iteration, ideally 2. Recurrence
2 costs even less. There is no load in the loop recurrences. The
load is used only for verifying the branch prediction. And in
particular, the load does not data-depend on any previous load.
>If branch prediction is always correct, the branching version builds
>an instruction queue that is a long chain of scaled indexed loads
>where the load index is data dependent on the prior iteration load value.
That's certainly not the case here.
Even if we assume that the branch predictor misses half of the time
(which is realistic), that means that the next load and the load of
all followig correctly predicted ifs just have to wait for the load of
the mispredicted branch plus the misprediction penalty. Which means
that on average two loads will happen in parallel, while the
branchless version only performs dependent loads. If the loads cost
more than a branch misprediction (because of cache misses), the
branching version is faster.
One can now improve the performance by using branchless for the first
few levels (which are cached), and adding prefetching and a mixture of
branchless and branchy for the rest, but for understanding the
principle the simple variants are best.
>[*] I want to see the asm because Intel's CMOV always executes the
>operand operation, then tosses the result if the predicate is false.
That's the usual thing for conditional execution/predication. But
here 0 has no dependencies and middle has only cheap dependencies, the
only expensive part is the load for the condition that turns into a
data dependency in the branchless version.
- anton
--
'Anyone trying for "industrial quality" ISA should avoid undefined behavior.'
Mitch Alsup, <c17fcd89-f024-40e7-a594-88a85ac10d20o@googlegroups.com>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-22 22:32 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: auto predicating branches |
| Message-ID | <f5e5bf81ac2c7e2066d2a181c5a70baf@www.novabbs.org> |
| In reply to | #111498 |
On Tue, 22 Apr 2025 17:31:03 +0000, Anton Ertl wrote:
> EricP <ThatWouldBeTelling@thevillage.com> writes:
>>Anton Ertl wrote:
>>> Compilers certainly can perform if-conversion, and there have been
>>> papers about that for at least 30 years, but compilers do not know
>>> when if-conversion is profitable. E.g., "branchless" (if-converted)
>>> binary search can be faster than a branching one when the searched
>>> array is cached at a close-enough level, but slower when most of the
>>> accesses miss the close caches
>>> <https://stackoverflow.com/questions/11360831/about-the-branchless-binary-search>.
>>
>>I'm missing something because the first answer by BeeOnRope looks wrong.
>>Unfortunately they don't show both pieces of code and the asm,
>>but a branching binary search to me looks just as load data dependent as
>> it
>>recalculates middle each iteration and the array index is array[middle].
>
> Here's the branchless version:
>
> while (n > 1) {
> int middle = n/2;
> base += (needle < *base[middle]) ? 0 : middle;
> n -= middle;
> }
loop:
SRA Rn,Rn,#1 // Rn in
LDD Rl,[Rb,Rm<<3] // Rb in
CMP R7,Rn,Rl
CMOVLT R7,#0,Rm
ADD Rb,Rb,-Rm // Rb out
ADD Rn,Rn,-Rm // Rn out
BR loop
>
> The branching version would then be:
>
> while (n > 1) {
> int middle = n/2;
> if (needle >= *base[middle])
> base += middle;
> n -= middle;
> }
loop:
SRA Rn,Rn,#1 // Rn in
LDD Rl,[Rb,Rm<<3] // Rb in
CMP R7,Rn,Rl
PGE R7,T
ADD Rb,Rb,-Rm // Rb conditionally out
ADD Rn,Rn,-Rm // Rn out
BR loop
The ADD or Rn can be freely positioned in the loop, but the recurrence
remains at 2 cycles.
A 7-wide (or wider) machine will be able to insert a whole iteration
of the loop per cycle. The loop has a 2 cycle recurrence, so, the
execution window will fill up rapidly and retire at 1 loop per 2 cycles;
being recurrence-bound. This agrees with the second paragraph below.
> In the branching version we have the following loop recurrences:
>
> 1) middle = n/2; n -= middle
> 2) base += middle;
>
> Recurrence 1 costs a few cycles per iteration, ideally 2. Recurrence
> 2 costs even less. There is no load in the loop recurrences. The
> load is used only for verifying the branch prediction. And in
> particular, the load does not data-depend on any previous load.
A shifter with a latency of 2 would really hurt this loop.
>>If branch prediction is always correct, the branching version builds
>>an instruction queue that is a long chain of scaled indexed loads
>>where the load index is data dependent on the prior iteration load value.
>
> That's certainly not the case here.
>
> Even if we assume that the branch predictor misses half of the time
> (which is realistic), that means that the next load and the load of
> all followig correctly predicted ifs just have to wait for the load of
> the mispredicted branch plus the misprediction penalty. Which means
> that on average two loads will happen in parallel, while the
> branchless version only performs dependent loads. If the loads cost
> more than a branch misprediction (because of cache misses), the
> branching version is faster.
I do not see 2 LDDs being performed parallel unless the execution
width is at least 14-wide. In any event loop recurrence restricts the
overall retirement to 0.5 LDDs per cycle--it is the recurrence that
feeds the iterations (i.e., retirement). The water hose is fundamentally
restricted by the recurrence.
> One can now improve the performance by using branchless for the first
> few levels (which are cached), and adding prefetching and a mixture of
> branchless and branchy for the rest, but for understanding the
> principle the simple variants are best.
Predicating has added latency on the delivery of Rb's recurrence in that
the consumer has to be ready for {didn't happen and now you are free"
along with "here is the data you are looking for". Complicating the
instruction queue "a little".
>>[*] I want to see the asm because Intel's CMOV always executes the
>>operand operation, then tosses the result if the predicate is false.
Use a less-stupid ISA
I took a look at extracting the < or >= cases and using it as a mask
(0, middle) but this takes 1 more instruction and does nothing about
the fundamental loop limiter.
> That's the usual thing for conditional execution/predication. But
> here 0 has no dependencies and middle has only cheap dependencies, the
> only expensive part is the load for the condition that turns into a
> data dependency in the branchless version.
>
> - anton
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-22 22:59 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: auto predicating branches |
| Message-ID | <jwvcyd338k2.fsf-monnier+comp.arch@gnu.org> |
| In reply to | #111499 |
> I do not see 2 LDDs being performed parallel unless the execution
> width is at least 14-wide. In any event loop recurrence restricts the
IIUC you'll get multiple loads in parallel if the loads take a long time
because of cache misses. Say each load takes 100 cycles, then there is
plenty of time during one load to predict many more iterations of the
loop and hence issue many more loads.
With a branching code, the addresses of those loads depend mostly on the
branch predictions, so the branch predictions end up performing a kind
of "value prediction" (where the value that's predicted is the address
of the next lookup).
With predication your load address will conceptually depend on 3 inputs:
the computation of `base + middle`, the computation of `base + 0`, and
the computation of the previous `needle < *base[middle]` test to choose
between the first two. If the LD of `*base[middle]` takes 100 cycle,
that means a delay of 100 cycles before the next LD can be issued.
Of course, nothing prevents a CPU from doing "predicate prediction":
instead of waiting for an answer to `needle < *base[middle]`, it could
try and guess whether it will be true or false and thus choose to send
one of the two addresses (or both) to the memory (and later check the
prediction and rollback, just like we do with normal branches).
Stefan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-23 18:09 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: auto predicating branches |
| Message-ID | <2025Apr23.200928@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> |
| In reply to | #111500 |
Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> writes: >Of course, nothing prevents a CPU from doing "predicate prediction": >instead of waiting for an answer to `needle < *base[middle]`, it could >try and guess whether it will be true or false and thus choose to send >one of the two addresses (or both) to the memory (and later check the >prediction and rollback, just like we do with normal branches). That would subvert the use of predication for getting constant-time code for avoiding timing side channels. I.e., not a good idea. - anton -- 'Anyone trying for "industrial quality" ISA should avoid undefined behavior.' Mitch Alsup, <c17fcd89-f024-40e7-a594-88a85ac10d20o@googlegroups.com>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | EricP <ThatWouldBeTelling@thevillage.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-24 10:10 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: auto predicating branches |
| Message-ID | <EErOP.98967$oJg.17487@fx17.iad> |
| In reply to | #111502 |
Anton Ertl wrote: > Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> writes: >> Of course, nothing prevents a CPU from doing "predicate prediction": >> instead of waiting for an answer to `needle < *base[middle]`, it could >> try and guess whether it will be true or false and thus choose to send >> one of the two addresses (or both) to the memory (and later check the >> prediction and rollback, just like we do with normal branches). > > That would subvert the use of predication for getting constant-time > code for avoiding timing side channels. I.e., not a good idea. > > - anton This assumes that the predicate's not-executed path is nullified in a constant time way. That might be ok for simple 1-clock instructions but I would want heavier ones, MUL, DIV, all floats, and all LD and ST, to be at worst nullified to 1-clock each, even better to 0. OoO nullified (not-executed) instructions may still take 1 clock if all such instructions that write a register have to copy the old physical dest register value to the new physical register. A constant time guarantee might only be possible if one manually arranges to unconditionally perform all calculations then CMOV the result.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-25 20:51 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: auto predicating branches |
| Message-ID | <6483d24559f5cd1fa1ff593bdba40394@www.novabbs.org> |
| In reply to | #111507 |
On Thu, 24 Apr 2025 14:10:50 +0000, EricP wrote: > Anton Ertl wrote: >> Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> writes: >>> Of course, nothing prevents a CPU from doing "predicate prediction": >>> instead of waiting for an answer to `needle < *base[middle]`, it could >>> try and guess whether it will be true or false and thus choose to send >>> one of the two addresses (or both) to the memory (and later check the >>> prediction and rollback, just like we do with normal branches). >> >> That would subvert the use of predication for getting constant-time >> code for avoiding timing side channels. I.e., not a good idea. >> >> - anton > > This assumes that the predicate's not-executed path is nullified in a > constant time way. That might be ok for simple 1-clock instructions but > I would want heavier ones, MUL, DIV, all floats, and all LD and ST, > to be at worst nullified to 1-clock each, even better to 0. > > OoO nullified (not-executed) instructions may still take 1 clock if all > such instructions that write a register have to copy the old physical > dest register value to the new physical register. Or to broadcast that you should NOT be waiting on this operand any longer. > A constant time guarantee might only be possible if one manually > arranges > to unconditionally perform all calculations then CMOV the result.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | EricP <ThatWouldBeTelling@thevillage.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-24 09:47 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: auto predicating branches |
| Message-ID | <PirOP.2638090$OrR5.1219920@fx18.iad> |
| In reply to | #111500 |
Stefan Monnier wrote: >> I do not see 2 LDDs being performed parallel unless the execution >> width is at least 14-wide. In any event loop recurrence restricts the > > IIUC you'll get multiple loads in parallel if the loads take a long time > because of cache misses. Say each load takes 100 cycles, then there is > plenty of time during one load to predict many more iterations of the > loop and hence issue many more loads. > > With a branching code, the addresses of those loads depend mostly on the > branch predictions, so the branch predictions end up performing a kind > of "value prediction" (where the value that's predicted is the address > of the next lookup). > > With predication your load address will conceptually depend on 3 inputs: > the computation of `base + middle`, the computation of `base + 0`, and > the computation of the previous `needle < *base[middle]` test to choose > between the first two. If the LD of `*base[middle]` takes 100 cycle, > that means a delay of 100 cycles before the next LD can be issued. > > Of course, nothing prevents a CPU from doing "predicate prediction": > instead of waiting for an answer to `needle < *base[middle]`, it could > try and guess whether it will be true or false and thus choose to send > one of the two addresses (or both) to the memory (and later check the > prediction and rollback, just like we do with normal branches). There was a flurry of predication research circa 2000 because of Itanium. One I saw suggested moving the prediction from BRcc to CMP op so it works for both branch and predicates. Their rational was that if-conversions affect the branch predictor stats by removing samples from the test sets. So yes it becomes a value prediction, but its a binary value and should be the same binary value as before.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-23 17:44 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: auto predicating branches |
| Message-ID | <2025Apr23.194456@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> |
| In reply to | #111499 |
mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) writes: >I do not see 2 LDDs being performed parallel unless the execution >width is at least 14-wide. In any event loop recurrence restricts the >overall retirement to 0.5 LDDs per cycle--it is the recurrence that >feeds the iterations (i.e., retirement). Yes. But with loads that take longer than two cycles (very common in OoO microarchitectures even for L1 hits), the second load starts before the first finishes. And in the case where the branchy version is profitable (when the load latency longer than the misprediction penalty due to cache misses), many loads will start before the first finishes (most of them will be canceled due to misprediction, but even an average of two useful parallel loads produces a good speedup). [EricP:] >>>[*] I want to see the asm because Intel's CMOV always executes the >>>operand operation, then tosses the result if the predicate is false. > >Use a less-stupid ISA The ISA does not require that. It could just as well be implemented as waiting for the condition, and only then perform the operation. And with a more sophisticated implementation one could even do that for operations that are not part of the CMOV instruction, but produce one of the source operands of the CMOV instruction. However, apparently such implementations have enough disadvantages (probably in performance) that nobody has gone there AFAIK. AFAIK everyone, including implementations of different ISAs implements CMOV/predication as performing the operation and then conditionally squashing the result. - anton -- 'Anyone trying for "industrial quality" ISA should avoid undefined behavior.' Mitch Alsup, <c17fcd89-f024-40e7-a594-88a85ac10d20o@googlegroups.com>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-23 21:34 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: auto predicating branches |
| Message-ID | <126700f99b6f97d7483bb5355d68c361@www.novabbs.org> |
| In reply to | #111501 |
On Wed, 23 Apr 2025 17:44:56 +0000, Anton Ertl wrote: > mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) writes: >>I do not see 2 LDDs being performed parallel unless the execution >>width is at least 14-wide. In any event loop recurrence restricts the >>overall retirement to 0.5 LDDs per cycle--it is the recurrence that >>feeds the iterations (i.e., retirement). > > Yes. But with loads that take longer than two cycles (very common in > OoO microarchitectures even for L1 hits), the second load starts > before the first finishes. And in the case where the branchy version > is profitable (when the load latency longer than the misprediction > penalty due to cache misses), many loads will start before the first > finishes (most of them will be canceled due to misprediction, but even > an average of two useful parallel loads produces a good speedup). We still have a 2 cycle loop recurrence, so even if we could perform 1000 LDs per cycle, we are fundamentally SRA and SUB bound around the loop from iteration to iteration. > [EricP:] >>>>[*] I want to see the asm because Intel's CMOV always executes the >>>>operand operation, then tosses the result if the predicate is false. >> >>Use a less-stupid ISA > > The ISA does not require that. It could just as well be implemented > as waiting for the condition, and only then perform the operation. > And with a more sophisticated implementation one could even do that > for operations that are not part of the CMOV instruction, but produce > one of the source operands of the CMOV instruction. However, > apparently such implementations have enough disadvantages (probably in > performance) that nobody has gone there AFAIK. AFAIK everyone, > including implementations of different ISAs implements > CMOV/predication as performing the operation and then conditionally > squashing the result. That is difficult with renaming. In order for the later instructions to wait on the CMOV renamed result register or the earlier predicted value, each entry in each station has to be able to wait on one or the other. In general, it is far easier to make CMOV be able to deliver either result so nothing downstream of CMOV has any added complexity. > > - anton
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Finch <robfi680@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-23 23:31 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: asynch register rename |
| Message-ID | <vucbbe$mvlc$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #111503 |
Changed the rename logic for StarkCPU, moved it from the in-order rename stage to an asynchronous process that operates on the re-order buffer. Primary reason was instructions may need too many destination register renames, causing stalls in the pipeline. As an async process the name supplier picks off up to four destination registers per clock. Following instructions do not stall because of the name supply. Usually this would be four instructions worth, but it may be less. This is in lieu of implementing instructions with micro-ops. Instructions with multiple targets could be implemented using multiple micro-ops. For Stark many instructions have a compare-to-zero built in that requires updating a condition register in addition to the destination register update. Signified with the ‘.’ suffix in assembler. With both carry and compare-to-zero at the same time there may be three destination registers in an instruction.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Finch <robfi680@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-27 07:36 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: fractional PCs |
| Message-ID | <vul4r4$n19o$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #111504 |
Representing the PC as a fixed-point number because it records which micro-op of the micro-op stream for an instruction got interrupted. It was easier to restart the micro-op stream than to defer interrupts to the next instruction. The lead micro-ops on a interrupt return are just NOP'd out. ATM there is no micro-op state that needs to be saved and restored through context switches, other than the index into the stream which can be saved as part of the PC.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-27 20:53 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: fractional PCs |
| Message-ID | <0b410ad93124778a2b1b3ab8fb6ec62c@www.novabbs.org> |
| In reply to | #111520 |
On Sun, 27 Apr 2025 11:36:05 +0000, Robert Finch wrote:
> Representing the PC as a fixed-point number because it records which
> micro-op of the micro-op stream for an instruction got interrupted. It
> was easier to restart the micro-op stream than to defer interrupts to
> the next instruction.
Why not just backup to the instruction boundary ??
> The lead micro-ops on a interrupt return are just NOP'd out. ATM there
> is no micro-op state that needs to be saved and restored through context
> switches, other than the index into the stream which can be saved as
> part of the PC.
Also note: this is "completion" interrupt model used in 010, 020, 030
{Not sure about 040}.
It caused:
a) a bunch of bugs
b) a lot of strange stack state
c) which could be attacked by any thread with privilege.
Although it "sounds" like it saves {time, energy, forward progress}
the state saving/restoring on the stack pretty much consumes all of
that.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Finch <robfi680@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-27 22:32 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: fractional PCs |
| Message-ID | <vumpcl$2a0rl$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #111528 |
On 2025-04-27 4:53 p.m., MitchAlsup1 wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Apr 2025 11:36:05 +0000, Robert Finch wrote:
>
>> Representing the PC as a fixed-point number because it records which
>> micro-op of the micro-op stream for an instruction got interrupted. It
>> was easier to restart the micro-op stream than to defer interrupts to
>> the next instruction.
>
> Why not just backup to the instruction boundary ??
I think I was worried about an instruction disabling interrupts or
causing an exception that should be processed before the interrupt
occurred. (keeping the interrupt precise). I did not want to need to
consider other exceptions that might have occurred before the interrupt.
Searching for an instruction boundary in either direction is I think
more logic than just recording the micro-op number. It is more FFs to
record the number, but fewer LUTs. There is like 8 x10 bit comparators
plus muxes on the re-order buffer to backup to the instruction boundary
and mark an interrupts. Just recording the micro-op number is just
stuffing 3 bits into the PC, plus three bits propagated down the
pipeline (FFs). The PC has two zero bits available already.
>
>> The lead micro-ops on a interrupt return are just NOP'd out. ATM there
>> is no micro-op state that needs to be saved and restored through context
>> switches, other than the index into the stream which can be saved as
>> part of the PC.
>
> Also note: this is "completion" interrupt model used in 010, 020, 030
> {Not sure about 040}.
>
> It caused:
> a) a bunch of bugs
> b) a lot of strange stack state
> c) which could be attacked by any thread with privilege.
>
> Although it "sounds" like it saves {time, energy, forward progress}
> the state saving/restoring on the stack pretty much consumes all of
> that.
a) is a bit worrisome. Doing something out of the ordinary is always
asking for bugs. I am guessing programmers tried to manipulate the stack
state on the 68k series. I replicated the 010 as an FPGA core and IIRC I
stuff the machine state number onto the stack. Which is bound to be a
different number than the 010.
b) There is no state that needs to be stacked outside of what is
normally stacked for an interrupt. For c) the usual interrupt as well
could be attacked by a thread with privilege.
I have coded it both ways, so I may make it a core option. Right up
there with page relative branching. There is already a flag to generate
the core for performance instead of size.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | EricP <ThatWouldBeTelling@thevillage.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-28 10:06 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: fractional PCs |
| Message-ID | <SXLPP.125642$oJg.21028@fx17.iad> |
| In reply to | #111532 |
Robert Finch wrote:
> On 2025-04-27 4:53 p.m., MitchAlsup1 wrote:
>> On Sun, 27 Apr 2025 11:36:05 +0000, Robert Finch wrote:
>>
>>> Representing the PC as a fixed-point number because it records which
>>> micro-op of the micro-op stream for an instruction got interrupted. It
>>> was easier to restart the micro-op stream than to defer interrupts to
>>> the next instruction.
>>
>> Why not just backup to the instruction boundary ??
>
> I think I was worried about an instruction disabling interrupts or
> causing an exception that should be processed before the interrupt
> occurred. (keeping the interrupt precise). I did not want to need to
> consider other exceptions that might have occurred before the interrupt.
I assume you are using the words interrupt and exception interchangeably.
Especially when discussing at the uArch level, I find it best to keep
these separate as the mechanisms are quite different.
External interrupts can use a single-step mechanism to stall at Fetch
and wait for the older instructions to complete, so it knows there are
no older exceptions or branch mispredict purges or control changes
(eg. there is no Interrupt Disable instruction in-flight).
Exceptions are defined as synchronous with a single instruction so you
can use the Instruction Queue/ROB to synchronize older vs younger ones.
> Searching for an instruction boundary in either direction is I think
> more logic than just recording the micro-op number. It is more FFs to
> record the number, but fewer LUTs. There is like 8 x10 bit comparators
> plus muxes on the re-order buffer to backup to the instruction boundary
> and mark an interrupts. Just recording the micro-op number is just
> stuffing 3 bits into the PC, plus three bits propagated down the
> pipeline (FFs). The PC has two zero bits available already.
You don't need to do that back-up scanning thing or worry about
older exceptions if you transfer the exception info to the IQ/ROB uOp
as "results" and let Retire take care of it. At Retire you know
there are no older exceptions and that the committed state
managed by Retire is synchronized with this instruction's start.
An OoO instruction that executes normally will write back its results and
mark the uOp as Done. When the uOp gets to the Retire stage in the queue,
Retire sees its done so updates the committed state, PC and registers,
and removes it.
If an instruction exception occurs during execution, at write back
instead it marks the uOp as Except and records the exception number
and any auxiliary info into the uOp, such as the address that page
faulted and what R/W/E access it was attempting.
When an Except uOp reaches Retire, it sees the Except flag and
- purges all the uOps in flight including the one with the exception
(so the PC and registers end up in the state they would be before
the Except instruction, making the exception precise).
Conceptually a big long CancelAll wire running to all function units
and front end stages, and halts Fetch until further notice.
- resets the future state to match the committed state
- Retire saves enough state (PC, stack pointer, flags, priv mode)
to restart plus saves the exception auxiliary details.
These can all be copied to privileged control registers
to be read later by the exception handler software.
- uses the exception number to select a new exception handler PC and SP
to jam those registers, and switch to Supervisor mode.
The first few instructions in the exception handler can copy the
exception info from the control regs onto the supervisor stack
(old PC, old SP, old flags, old priv mode, aux info) that the handler
needs to fix the fault and restart.
The exception handler fixes the fault if it can and restores the restart
state (old PC, old SP, old flags, old priv mode) into the privileged
control registers. Afterward it executes a Return from Exception or
Interrupt REI instruction.
When Decode sees a REI instruction it:
- uses single step to wait for in-flight instructions to complete
- copies those privileged control registers back to PC, SP, flag, priv mode
- purges the Fetch stage so it restarts using the new PC and priv mode
>>> The lead micro-ops on a interrupt return are just NOP'd out. ATM there
>>> is no micro-op state that needs to be saved and restored through context
>>> switches, other than the index into the stream which can be saved as
>>> part of the PC.
>>
>> Also note: this is "completion" interrupt model used in 010, 020, 030
>> {Not sure about 040}.
>>
>> It caused:
>> a) a bunch of bugs
>> b) a lot of strange stack state
>> c) which could be attacked by any thread with privilege.
>>
>> Although it "sounds" like it saves {time, energy, forward progress}
>> the state saving/restoring on the stack pretty much consumes all of
>> that.
>
> a) is a bit worrisome. Doing something out of the ordinary is always
> asking for bugs. I am guessing programmers tried to manipulate the stack
> state on the 68k series. I replicated the 010 as an FPGA core and IIRC I
> stuff the machine state number onto the stack. Which is bound to be a
> different number than the 010.
> b) There is no state that needs to be stacked outside of what is
> normally stacked for an interrupt.
Exception handler needs the auxiliary info to know what to fix.
> For c) the usual interrupt as well
> could be attacked by a thread with privilege.
>
> I have coded it both ways, so I may make it a core option. Right up
> there with page relative branching. There is already a flag to generate
> the core for performance instead of size.
>
>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | EricP <ThatWouldBeTelling@thevillage.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-28 10:50 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: fractional PCs |
| Message-ID | <EBMPP.1831387$SZca.1180228@fx13.iad> |
| In reply to | #111533 |
EricP wrote: > Oh I forgot to mention this mechanism is not interrupt reentrant so must disable and enable interrupts. (But its still cheaper than x86.) > - Retire saves enough state (PC, stack pointer, flags, priv mode) > to restart plus saves the exception auxiliary details. > These can all be copied to privileged control registers > to be read later by the exception handler software. And disables interrupts so the those control registers can't be overwritten by an interrupt before we have a chance to save them. > - uses the exception number to select a new exception handler PC and SP > to jam those registers, and switch to Supervisor mode. > > The first few instructions in the exception handler can copy the > exception info from the control regs onto the supervisor stack > (old PC, old SP, old flags, old priv mode, aux info) that the handler > needs to fix the fault and restart. After handler saves the state to the kernel stack it enables interrupts. And disables interrupts just before it starts the restore sequence below. > The exception handler fixes the fault if it can and restores the restart > state (old PC, old SP, old flags, old priv mode) into the privileged > control registers. Afterward it executes a Return from Exception or > Interrupt REI instruction. The old flags-mode registers also has an interrupt enable flag to restore. > When Decode sees a REI instruction it: > - uses single step to wait for in-flight instructions to complete > - copies those privileged control registers back to PC, SP, flag, priv mode And restores the committed interrupt enable flag. > - purges the Fetch stage so it restarts using the new PC and priv mode And Fetch's interrupt enable flag state is set to the committed state.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 46 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 46 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.arch
csiph-web