Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.arch > #6570

Re: Indirect Bit

From Andrew Reilly <areilly.---@bigpond.net.au>
Newsgroups comp.arch
Subject Re: Indirect Bit
Date 2012-04-17 22:05 +0000
Message-ID <9v67puF493U1@mid.individual.net> (permalink)
References (2 earlier) <jmbvbo$cu3$1@needham.csi.cam.ac.uk> <5623c8b4-715e-4ee3-8440-ed4331416aee@z3g2000vbk.googlegroups.com> <jmhjnc$770$1@needham.csi.cam.ac.uk> <9v3noiFchsU1@mid.individual.net> <21570746.2123.1334679046583.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@ynaz34>

Show all headers | View raw

On Tue, 17 Apr 2012 09:10:46 -0700, MitchAlsup wrote:

> On Monday, April 16, 2012 6:19:47 PM UTC-5, Andrew Reilly wrote:
>> What's non-orthogonal about a general 3-register instruction structure?
> 
> Stuff like:
> 
>      x = 356/i y = 413-j
> 
> So the compiler has easy access to "reg op constant" but almost no
> access to "constant op reg". Some instruction sets gave access with
> additional instructions such as ReverseSubtract (and similar). This only
> maters when the op is not commutitive.

Those are only non-orthogonal when the 3-register instruction actually 
has a two-register-and-constant form, which many did have.  There were a 
few pure 3-reigster archs though, so you always had to load the constant 
separately: no "extra" effort.

Is it fair to complain that a generally applicable shortcut isn't 
universally applicable?  Maybe it is, but it seems like a reasonable 
tradeoff to me.

> Comment on pre/post increment/decrement:
> 
> The register port required for the write back of the data on a small
> machine it quite horrible while the register port on any
> great-big-Out-of-Order machine is inconsequential.
> 
> But that is not why it was "left out". It was left out because there are
> so many occurances where p++ was still "alive" when another p++ is
> encountered. The compiler was happy to merge both (many) increments into
> a single add and decorate the p++ accesses into p[0], p[1], p[2]
> accesses. This reduces the number of computations required. So not doing
> these increases performance.

Oh, I understand that.  Also the condition code thing.  Both perfectly 
reasonable.  I was just clutching at architecture diminutions that were 
commented on at the time.  Couldn't think of anything that actually 
supported my original argument of missing non-C support.  Maybe Pascal-
call convention return operations (auto-pop)?

Cheers,

-- 
Andrew

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

Thread

Indirect Bit Mark Thorson <nospam@sonic.net> - 2012-04-10 19:31 -0800
  Re: Indirect Bit Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2012-04-11 01:29 -0500
    Re: Indirect Bit sarr.blumson@alum.dartmouth.org - 2012-04-11 14:48 +0000
      Re: Indirect Bit mac <acolvin@efunct.com> - 2012-04-12 14:43 +0000
    Re: Indirect Bit Morten Reistad <first@last.name> - 2012-04-22 15:19 +0200
      Re: Indirect Bit "Andy (Super) Glew" <andy@SPAM.comp-arch.net> - 2012-04-22 23:24 -0700
  Re: Indirect Bit Terje Mathisen <"terje.mathisen at tmsw.no"> - 2012-04-11 08:32 +0200
    Re: Indirect Bit Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2012-04-11 05:49 -0700
      Re: Indirect Bit "Andy (Super) Glew" <andy@SPAM.comp-arch.net> - 2012-04-12 21:22 -0700
        Re: Indirect Bit "Paul A. Clayton" <paaronclayton@gmail.com> - 2012-04-13 08:14 -0700
          Re: Indirect Bit Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2012-04-13 16:13 -0700
            Re: Indirect Bit "Paul A. Clayton" <paaronclayton@gmail.com> - 2012-04-13 20:01 -0700
              Re: Indirect Bit Andrew Reilly <areilly.---@bigpond.net.au> - 2012-04-14 03:16 +0000
                Re: Indirect Bit "Paul A. Clayton" <paaronclayton@gmail.com> - 2012-04-14 08:14 -0700
        Re: Indirect Bit Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2012-04-13 16:05 -0700
          Re: Indirect Bit MitchAlsup <MitchAlsup@aol.com> - 2012-04-13 17:01 -0700
            Re: Indirect Bit Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2012-04-14 13:49 -0700
          Re: Indirect Bit Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2012-04-13 20:07 -0400
          Re: Indirect Bit Terje Mathisen <"terje.mathisen at tmsw.no"> - 2012-04-14 18:47 +0200
          Re: Indirect Bit Morten Reistad <first@last.name> - 2012-04-22 15:26 +0200
            Re: Indirect Bit "Andy (Super) Glew" <andy@SPAM.comp-arch.net> - 2012-04-22 23:25 -0700
              Re: Indirect Bit nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2012-04-23 09:18 +0100
                Re: Indirect Bit EricP <ThatWouldBeTelling@thevillage.com> - 2012-04-23 19:35 -0400
                Re: Indirect Bit nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2012-04-24 08:37 +0100
                Re: Indirect Bit nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2012-04-24 09:42 +0100
                Re: Indirect Bit Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2012-04-24 01:58 -0700
                Re: Indirect Bit nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2012-04-24 11:26 +0100
                Re: Indirect Bit Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2012-04-24 05:02 -0700
                Re: Indirect Bit nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2012-04-24 13:58 +0100
                Re: Indirect Bit Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2012-04-24 10:07 -0700
                Re: Indirect Bit Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2012-04-24 04:30 -0700
                Re: Indirect Bit nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2012-04-24 13:01 +0100
  Re: Indirect Bit Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2012-04-11 10:03 -0400
  Re: Indirect Bit kenney@cix.compulink.co.uk - 2012-04-11 09:22 -0500
    Re: Indirect Bit Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2012-04-12 14:11 -0700
      Re: Indirect Bit Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2012-04-12 18:05 -0400
        Re: Indirect Bit "Andy (Super) Glew" <andy@SPAM.comp-arch.net> - 2012-04-12 20:13 -0700
      Re: Indirect Bit Mark Thorson <nospam@sonic.net> - 2012-04-12 16:55 -0800
        Re: Indirect Bit Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2012-04-12 17:25 -0700
          Re: Indirect Bit Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2012-04-12 20:03 -0500
          Re: Indirect Bit "Andy (Super) Glew" <andy@SPAM.comp-arch.net> - 2012-04-12 21:33 -0700
            Re: Indirect Bit Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2012-04-13 15:57 -0700
              Re: Indirect Bit MitchAlsup <MitchAlsup@aol.com> - 2012-04-13 17:03 -0700
        Re: Indirect Bit "Andy (Super) Glew" <andy@SPAM.comp-arch.net> - 2012-04-12 20:14 -0700
  Re: Indirect Bit Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2012-04-11 10:35 -0400
  Re: Indirect Bit MitchAlsup <MitchAlsup@aol.com> - 2012-04-11 08:54 -0700
  Re: Indirect Bit "Andy (Super) Glew" <andy@SPAM.comp-arch.net> - 2012-04-12 07:55 -0700
    Re: Indirect Bit MitchAlsup <MitchAlsup@aol.com> - 2012-04-12 10:16 -0700
      Re: Indirect Bit jacko <jackokring@gmail.com> - 2012-04-12 11:07 -0700
        Re: Indirect Bit "Andy (Super) Glew" <andy@SPAM.comp-arch.net> - 2012-04-12 21:34 -0700
      Re: Indirect Bit Stephen Fuld <SFuld@alumni.cmu.edu.invalid> - 2012-04-12 11:35 -0700
        Re: Indirect Bit "Andy (Super) Glew" <andy@SPAM.comp-arch.net> - 2012-04-12 21:41 -0700
          Re: Indirect Bit jacko <jackokring@gmail.com> - 2012-04-13 14:52 -0700
          Re: Indirect Bit Stephen Fuld <SFuld@alumni.cmu.edu.invalid> - 2012-04-15 09:24 -0700
            Re: Indirect Bit Terje Mathisen <"terje.mathisen at tmsw.no"> - 2012-04-15 22:45 +0200
              Re: Indirect Bit Stephen Fuld <SFuld@alumni.cmu.edu.invalid> - 2012-04-15 18:04 -0700
      Re: Indirect Bit "Andy (Super) Glew" <andy@SPAM.comp-arch.net> - 2012-04-12 21:12 -0700
    Re: Indirect Bit timcaffrey@aol.com (Tim McCaffrey) - 2012-04-12 19:23 +0000
    Re: Indirect Bit Terje Mathisen <"terje.mathisen at tmsw.no"> - 2012-04-13 08:54 +0200
      Re: Indirect Bit "Andy (Super) Glew" <andy@SPAM.comp-arch.net> - 2012-04-14 14:37 -0700
    Re: Indirect Bit Andrew Reilly <areilly.---@bigpond.net.au> - 2012-04-15 23:42 +0000
      Re: Indirect Bit "Paul A. Clayton" <paaronclayton@gmail.com> - 2012-04-16 08:08 -0700
        Re: Indirect Bit Andrew Reilly <areilly.---@bigpond.net.au> - 2012-04-16 23:38 +0000
          Re: Indirect Bit "Andy (Super) Glew" <andy@SPAM.comp-arch.net> - 2012-04-16 21:29 -0700
      Re: Indirect Bit "Andy (Super) Glew" <andy@SPAM.comp-arch.net> - 2012-04-16 21:25 -0700
  Re: Indirect Bit Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2012-04-12 14:05 -0700
    Re: Indirect Bit ChrisQ <blackhole@devnull.com> - 2012-04-14 10:12 +0000
      Re: Indirect Bit "Paul A. Clayton" <paaronclayton@gmail.com> - 2012-04-14 06:25 -0700
        Re: Indirect Bit nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2012-04-14 14:50 +0100
          Re: Indirect Bit ChrisQ <blackhole@devnull.com> - 2012-04-14 18:01 +0000
            Re: Indirect Bit Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2012-04-14 14:00 -0700
              Re: Indirect Bit Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2012-04-14 20:58 -0400
            Re: Indirect Bit "Paul A. Clayton" <paaronclayton@gmail.com> - 2012-04-16 09:57 -0700
            Re: Indirect Bit timcaffrey@aol.com (Tim McCaffrey) - 2012-04-20 23:19 +0000
          Re: Indirect Bit "Paul A. Clayton" <paaronclayton@gmail.com> - 2012-04-16 08:50 -0700
            Re: Indirect Bit nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2012-04-16 18:09 +0100
              Re: Indirect Bit Andrew Reilly <areilly.---@bigpond.net.au> - 2012-04-16 23:19 +0000
                Re: Indirect Bit nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2012-04-17 09:20 +0100
                Re: Indirect Bit Terje Mathisen <"terje.mathisen at tmsw.no"> - 2012-04-17 12:49 +0200
                Re: Indirect Bit Andrew Reilly <areilly.---@bigpond.net.au> - 2012-04-17 12:40 +0000
                Re: Indirect Bit nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2012-04-18 12:01 +0100
                Re: Indirect Bit anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-04-17 12:34 +0000
                Re: Indirect Bit MitchAlsup <MitchAlsup@aol.com> - 2012-04-17 09:10 -0700
                Re: Indirect Bit Andrew Reilly <areilly.---@bigpond.net.au> - 2012-04-17 22:05 +0000
                Re: Indirect Bit jgk@panix.com (Joe keane) - 2012-04-19 19:37 +0000
                Re: Indirect Bit torbenm@diku.dk (Torben Ægidius Mogensen) - 2012-04-20 11:10 +0200
                Re: Indirect Bit Terje Mathisen <"terje.mathisen at tmsw.no"> - 2012-04-20 11:24 +0200
                Re: Indirect Bit nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2012-04-20 15:01 +0100
                Re: Indirect Bit nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2012-04-20 15:03 +0100
                Re: Indirect Bit Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2012-04-20 08:01 -0700
                Re: Indirect Bit nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2012-04-20 16:35 +0100
                Re: Indirect Bit Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2012-04-18 11:10 -0700
                Re: Indirect Bit MitchAlsup <MitchAlsup@aol.com> - 2012-04-18 15:37 -0700
          Re: Indirect Bit MitchAlsup <MitchAlsup@aol.com> - 2012-04-16 11:21 -0700
            Re: Indirect Bit nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2012-04-16 19:36 +0100
              Re: Indirect Bit Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2012-04-18 11:17 -0700
                Re: Indirect Bit MitchAlsup <MitchAlsup@aol.com> - 2012-04-18 15:33 -0700
                Re: Indirect Bit Andreas Eder <andreas_eder@gmx.net> - 2012-04-19 00:29 +0200
                Re: Indirect Bit nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2012-04-19 10:50 +0100
                Re: Indirect Bit MitchAlsup <MitchAlsup@aol.com> - 2012-04-19 11:29 -0700
                Re: Indirect Bit nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2012-04-19 21:39 +0100
                Re: Indirect Bit EricP <ThatWouldBeTelling@thevillage.com> - 2012-04-20 15:14 -0400
                Re: Indirect Bit "Andy (Super) Glew" <andy@SPAM.comp-arch.net> - 2012-04-20 22:43 -0700
                Re: Indirect Bit EricP <ThatWouldBeTelling@thevillage.com> - 2012-04-21 17:14 -0400
                Re: Indirect Bit Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2012-04-21 19:47 -0500
                Re: Indirect Bit Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2012-04-22 10:45 +0200
                Re: Indirect Bit nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2012-04-22 09:57 +0100
                Re: Indirect Bit Terje Mathisen <"terje.mathisen at tmsw.no"> - 2012-04-22 12:54 +0200
                Re: Indirect Bit nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2012-04-22 13:00 +0100
                Re: Indirect Bit Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2012-04-22 13:28 +0200
                Re: Indirect Bit nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2012-04-22 13:04 +0100
                Re: Indirect Bit Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201204.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> - 2012-04-22 23:00 +0200
                Re: Indirect Bit Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2012-04-22 18:05 -0400
                Re: Indirect Bit glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2012-04-22 23:20 +0000
                Re: Indirect Bit nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2012-04-23 08:22 +0100
                Re: Indirect Bit Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2012-04-22 03:56 -0700
                Re: Indirect Bit EricP <ThatWouldBeTelling@thevillage.com> - 2012-04-22 12:28 -0400
                Re: Indirect Bit Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2012-04-22 12:56 -0500
                Re: Indirect Bit Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2012-04-22 13:15 -0700
                Re: Indirect Bit Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2012-04-22 22:30 +0200
                Re: Indirect Bit nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2012-04-22 21:40 +0100
                Re: Indirect Bit Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2012-04-22 17:15 -0500
                Re: Indirect Bit nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2012-04-23 08:26 +0100
                Re: Indirect Bit Stephen Fuld <SFuld@alumni.cmu.edu.invalid> - 2012-04-23 08:02 -0700
                Re: Indirect Bit nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2012-04-23 17:02 +0100
                Re: Indirect Bit Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201204.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> - 2012-04-23 20:17 +0200
                Re: Indirect Bit Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2012-04-23 13:07 -0500
                Re: Indirect Bit Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2012-04-22 13:16 -0700
                Re: Indirect Bit MitchAlsup <MitchAlsup@aol.com> - 2012-04-23 13:14 -0700
                Re: Indirect Bit Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2012-04-23 16:51 -0400
                Re: Indirect Bit Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2012-04-23 14:22 -0700
                Re: Indirect Bit MitchAlsup <MitchAlsup@aol.com> - 2012-04-21 11:17 -0700
        Re: Indirect Bit jacko <jackokring@gmail.com> - 2012-04-14 08:02 -0700

csiph-web