Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
| From | Andrew Reilly <areilly---@bigpond.net.au> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.arch |
| Subject | Re: The Indexed Instruction Problem Solved! |
| Date | 2011-07-17 23:26 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <98h9dhFhltU2@mid.individual.net> (permalink) |
| References | <ggtgp-55D8EB.18315712072011@netnews.mchsi.com> <1670894707332520562.199029acolvin-efunct.com@news.eternal-september.org> <5b3f58f9-d560-4e09-ba6c-490b8edf5ff6@p31g2000vbs.googlegroups.com> |
On Sun, 17 Jul 2011 09:50:55 -0700, Quadibloc wrote: > On Jul 17, 9:31 am, mac <acol...@efunct.com> wrote: >> > At the opposite side of the spectrum, does anyone remember any CPU >> > architectures that only supported direct addressing? Itanium was >> > kinda weak in the address department. >> >> The 70's-era Able <http://sites.google.com/site/macthenaief> as well as >> some recent VLIW processors designed for embedded systems. A VLIW (and >> perhaps the Itanium) schedules offset and index arithmetic upstream of >> the memiry reference. In effect it uses extra integer ALUs as the >> address generation unit. > > And that also explains the 29000, since doing it that way makes sense > with the RISC paradigm as well. It only makes sense if one cares that maximum flexibility and re-use is made of precious ALU real-estate. On the other hand, address generation is something that probably around half of issued instructions are going to need to do (or have done on their behalf), so having the extra hardware there to do it in parallel with the other ALU ops is surely a win when it comes to instruction space and decode effort and work done per clock? Certainly processors like the 68000 showed us that there are occasions when we want to use more elaborate algorithms to compute our addresses than the simple ones typically encoded in addressing modes, and that having to insert extra move instructions to get values from the "address registers" to the "integer registers" probably isn't a winning formula all the time. There are plenty of other processors that have AGU hardware that operates from normal integer registers (no store port required) without soaking up primary ALU execution slots or blowing out loop schedules, and without all of the extra instruction stream bother of another full-service execution pipeline (VLIW or otherwise). Cheers, -- Andrew
Back to comp.arch | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Re: The Indexed Instruction Problem Solved! MitchAlsup <MitchAlsup@aol.com> - 2011-07-06 14:12 -0700
Re: The Indexed Instruction Problem Solved! Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2011-07-06 15:48 -0700
Re: The Indexed Instruction Problem Solved! EricP <ThatWouldBeTelling@thevillage.com> - 2011-07-06 20:36 -0400
Re: The Indexed Instruction Problem Solved! "Andy \"Krazy\" Glew" <andy@SPAM.comp-arch.net> - 2011-07-06 23:29 -0700
Re: The Indexed Instruction Problem Solved! "Andy \"Krazy\" Glew" <andy@SPAM.comp-arch.net> - 2011-07-06 23:31 -0700
Re: The Indexed Instruction Problem Solved! "Andy \"Krazy\" Glew" <andy@SPAM.comp-arch.net> - 2011-07-06 23:38 -0700
Re: The Indexed Instruction Problem Solved! "Andy \"Krazy\" Glew" <andy@SPAM.comp-arch.net> - 2011-07-06 23:39 -0700
Re: The Indexed Instruction Problem Solved! timcaffrey@aol.com (Tim McCaffrey) - 2011-07-14 01:36 +0000
Re: The Indexed Instruction Problem Solved! Stephen Fuld <SFuld@alumni.cmu.edu.invalid> - 2011-07-07 08:12 -0700
Re: The Indexed Instruction Problem Solved! EricP <ThatWouldBeTelling@thevillage.com> - 2011-07-07 12:24 -0400
Re: The Indexed Instruction Problem Solved! John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> - 2011-07-08 01:29 +0000
Re: The Indexed Instruction Problem Solved! Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2011-07-07 18:53 -0700
Re: The Indexed Instruction Problem Solved! John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> - 2011-07-08 02:17 +0000
Re: The Indexed Instruction Problem Solved! EricP <ThatWouldBeTelling@thevillage.com> - 2011-07-09 13:15 -0400
Re: The Indexed Instruction Problem Solved! John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> - 2011-07-09 18:37 +0000
Re: The Indexed Instruction Problem Solved! Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2011-07-09 11:53 -0700
Re: The Indexed Instruction Problem Solved! Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2011-07-09 11:55 -0700
Re: The Indexed Instruction Problem Solved! Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2011-07-09 11:49 -0700
Re: The Indexed Instruction Problem Solved! Chris Jones <clj@panix.com> - 2011-07-09 16:21 -0400
Re: The Indexed Instruction Problem Solved! Joe Chisolm <jchisolm6@earthlink.net> - 2011-07-07 13:19 -0500
Re: The Indexed Instruction Problem Solved! Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2011-07-07 12:11 -0700
Re: The Indexed Instruction Problem Solved! Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2011-07-07 12:13 -0700
Re: The Indexed Instruction Problem Solved! jsavard@excxn.aNOSPAMb.cdn.invalid (John Savard) - 2011-07-07 19:32 +0000
Re: The Indexed Instruction Problem Solved! Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2011-07-07 04:09 -0700
Re: The Indexed Instruction Problem Solved! Brett Davis <ggtgp@yahoo.com> - 2011-07-12 18:31 -0500
Re: The Indexed Instruction Problem Solved! "Andy \"Krazy\" Glew" <andy@SPAM.comp-arch.net> - 2011-07-13 22:31 -0700
Re: The Indexed Instruction Problem Solved! mac <acolvin@efunct.com> - 2011-07-17 15:31 +0000
Re: The Indexed Instruction Problem Solved! Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2011-07-17 09:50 -0700
Re: The Indexed Instruction Problem Solved! Andrew Reilly <areilly---@bigpond.net.au> - 2011-07-17 23:26 +0000
Re: The Indexed Instruction Problem Solved! Brett Davis <ggtgp@yahoo.com> - 2011-07-17 19:52 -0500
Re: The Indexed Instruction Problem Solved! Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2011-07-17 18:22 -0700
Re: The Indexed Instruction Problem Solved! "Andy \"Krazy\" Glew" <andy@SPAM.comp-arch.net> - 2011-07-17 21:33 -0700
Re: The Indexed Instruction Problem Solved! Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2011-07-18 06:34 -0700
Re: The Indexed Instruction Problem Solved! Stephen Fuld <SFuld@alumni.cmu.edu.invalid> - 2011-07-18 09:22 -0700
Re: The Indexed Instruction Problem Solved! nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2011-07-18 14:13 +0100
Re: The Indexed Instruction Problem Solved! Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2011-07-18 07:27 -0700
Re: The Indexed Instruction Problem Solved! nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2011-07-18 16:22 +0100
Re: The Indexed Instruction Problem Solved! Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2011-07-18 09:56 -0700
Re: The Indexed Instruction Problem Solved! nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2011-07-18 17:43 +0100
Re: The Indexed Instruction Problem Solved! Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2011-07-18 14:58 -0700
Re: The Indexed Instruction Problem Solved! nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2011-07-19 07:22 +0100
csiph-web