Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
| Newsgroups | comp.arch, alt.folklore.computers |
|---|---|
| Subject | Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! |
| References | <PM0004ABE18AD7D78B@aca343ef.ipt.aol.com> <j3tn7c$3si$1@dont-email.me> <86vct68blk.fsf@zipcon.net> <d12d6d7d-759d-47ab-b894-cf6ce397301e@z4g2000vbz.googlegroups.com> |
| From | Morten Reistad <first@last.name> |
| Date | 2011-09-07 14:14 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <4e676d76$1@news.broadpark.no> (permalink) |
Cross-posted to 2 groups.
In article <d12d6d7d-759d-47ab-b894-cf6ce397301e@z4g2000vbz.googlegroups.com>, Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote: >On Sep 5, 11:48 pm, Patrick Scheible <k...@zipcon.net> wrote: > >> but also made it very difficult to tell which pieces of memory any given >> instruction were going to access in advance. > >Yes. While the PDP-10 was a wonderful machine, it would not be >appropriate for that architecture to be today's standard instead of >the x86 architecture - for all of its flaws. It's essential that any >modern architecture lend itself well to deep pipelines and arithmetic >units designed to work quickly in parallel (i.e. Wallace trees instead >of handing the multiplier serially). The only things I have found that would make a pdp10 non-pipelige friendly are related to the effective address calculation, which could loop, and was totally unpredictable until the code got there. If bit 13 (the "@") was set, I cannot see how a pipeline could handle it without exploding in complexity. There are some other smaller things, like aliasing registers as memory locations, indexing with wild abandon (and even sometimes invoking "@" there too) and some skips over instructions, but otherwise it should lend itself well to pipelining. The pipelining could also do "bit 13" excepts, and fall back to a stall if this happened. Advanced pipelining could analyse one step into a "@", and see if the chain ended there. -- mrr
Back to comp.arch | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2011-09-01 13:39 +0000
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! "Andy \"Krazy\" Glew" <andy@SPAM.comp-arch.net> - 2011-09-01 08:18 -0700
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2011-09-02 13:44 +0000
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! "Andy \"Krazy\" Glew" <andy@SPAM.comp-arch.net> - 2011-09-02 09:37 -0700
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Patrick Scheible <kkt@zipcon.net> - 2011-09-02 10:21 -0700
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! rpw3@rpw3.org (Rob Warnock) - 2011-09-05 06:11 -0500
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2011-09-03 14:57 +0000
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Peter Flass <Peter_Flass@Yahoo.com> - 2011-09-03 13:13 -0400
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! rpw3@rpw3.org (Rob Warnock) - 2011-09-05 06:41 -0500
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Peter Flass <Peter_Flass@Yahoo.com> - 2011-09-05 08:21 -0400
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2011-09-05 13:26 +0000
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Patrick Scheible <kkt@zipcon.net> - 2011-09-05 22:48 -0700
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2011-09-06 16:51 -0700
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Morten Reistad <first@last.name> - 2011-09-07 14:14 +0200
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Patrick Scheible <kkt@zipcon.net> - 2011-09-07 09:45 -0700
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Rob Doyle <radioengr@gmail.com> - 2011-09-07 18:54 -0700
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2011-09-08 00:53 -0700
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! MitchAlsup <MitchAlsup@aol.com> - 2011-09-08 08:00 -0700
csiph-web