Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
| From | Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.arch |
| Subject | Re: Reading the Mill wiki: comments and a concern |
| Date | 2014-12-13 04:36 +0100 |
| Organization | albasani.net |
| Message-ID | <20141213043621.6f5313f7@maxa-pc> (permalink) |
| References | <memo.20141212191505.4640d@jgd.cix.co.uk> <m6ffq3$cm$1@dont-email.me> <9ec3af8d-7a34-43a9-861e-3eeaf8a11baf@googlegroups.com> <m6g3nl$9d8$1@dont-email.me> |
On Fri, 12 Dec 2014 17:11:29 -0800 Ivan Godard <ivan@ootbcomp.com> wrote: > On 12/12/2014 2:54 PM, Quadibloc wrote: > > On Friday, December 12, 2014 12:31:36 PM UTC-7, Ivan Godard wrote: > >> Beyond that, we have put a lot of > >> effort into making the Mill ISA optimization-proof. When code can > >> be optimized it means that the architecture design was lacking > >> IMO, YMMV. > > > > Now this is an interesting perspective. > > > > Generally speaking, the conventional way of thinking of computer > > architectures is that they present the hardware to the programmer. > > If it's well designed, the programmer has an opportunity to get > > lots of performance out of the hardware - but that it's possible to > > get things wrong, and that there's a right way of using a given > > computer, is only reasonable. > > > > But that is partly thinking from the "old days" - specifically, > > before the IBM 360 came along, and ended the pattern of having a > > different ISA for each new machine, specifically designed for that > > machine's hardware. > > > > For a compiler to do things once, rather than chip hardware to do > > the same things on every loop iteration, seems to make sense. I've > > recently learned, I think, that why current RISC architectures are > > the way they are, including some, but not all, features of the > > original RISC model, is that they are oriented towards removing the > > need for out-of-order execution. > > > > But many RISC chips have OOO implementations now, and that is, I > > think, not a contradiction of my conclusiion - instead, it's that a > > RISC design makes it possible to avoid OOO for a given number of > > pipeline stages; if you have more pipeline stages, then you don't > > have enough registers to avoid the need for OOO any more. > > > > Since the Mill transforms its code once - at load time - to its > > internal model- dependent code, it avoids that particular bit of > > wastefulness associated with OOO. > > > > John Savard > > > > Another way to look at my viewpoint is to sat that ISAs should > directly match what HLLs actually do, before compilation removes all > the structure that was present in the original program. That is, for > each construct that is a primitive in the (union of all) HLL, there > should be one machine operation that does that primitive. > Optimization is neither necessary nor useful. > > I use our call operation as an example: if the program contains > "F(a,b,c)", you get the machine code "call(f,a,b,c)". What else would > you want? Why should you deal with things like stack pointers and > register saving? Nice. I cannot imagine doing it without register saving in stack :p > > Yes, HLLs vary in their selection of primitives, and the ISA designer > has to make sure that the ISA machine primitives don't leave some HLL > in the lurch. But at the primitive level HLLs are far more similar > than different, and the differences tend to be things that have to be > done by the RTS anyway because they are too complex to move to > hardware. Well, there will be ABI? (if not already) and all HLL's honor ABI, therefore not a problem. Is there a plan to make something like qemu for Mill so that people can at least write assembler (and test) for it?
Back to comp.arch | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Reading the Mill wiki: comments and a concern jgd@cix.co.uk (John Dallman) - 2014-12-12 19:15 +0000
Re: Reading the Mill wiki: comments and a concern Ivan Godard <ivan@ootbcomp.com> - 2014-12-12 11:31 -0800
Re: Reading the Mill wiki: comments and a concern peterfirefly@gmail.com - 2014-12-12 11:46 -0800
Re: Reading the Mill wiki: comments and a concern Ivan Godard <ivan@ootbcomp.com> - 2014-12-12 12:06 -0800
Re: Reading the Mill wiki: comments and a concern peterfirefly@gmail.com - 2014-12-12 13:37 -0800
Re: Reading the Mill wiki: comments and a concern Ivan Godard <ivan@ootbcomp.com> - 2014-12-12 16:50 -0800
Re: Reading the Mill wiki: comments and a concern jgd@cix.co.uk (John Dallman) - 2014-12-12 20:24 +0000
Re: Reading the Mill wiki: comments and a concern Ivan Godard <ivan@ootbcomp.com> - 2014-12-12 12:35 -0800
Re: Reading the Mill wiki: comments and a concern Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2014-12-12 15:03 -0800
Re: Reading the Mill wiki: comments and a concern Ivan Godard <ivan@ootbcomp.com> - 2014-12-12 17:01 -0800
Re: Reading the Mill wiki: comments and a concern Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2014-12-12 14:54 -0800
Re: Reading the Mill wiki: comments and a concern Ivan Godard <ivan@ootbcomp.com> - 2014-12-12 17:11 -0800
Re: Reading the Mill wiki: comments and a concern Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2014-12-13 04:36 +0100
Re: Reading the Mill wiki: comments and a concern Ivan Godard <ivan@ootbcomp.com> - 2014-12-12 19:59 -0800
csiph-web