Re: 80286 protected mode

Liste des GroupesRevenir à c arch 
Sujet : Re: 80286 protected mode
De : david.brown (at) *nospam* hesbynett.no (David Brown)
Groupes : comp.arch
Date : 11. Oct 2024, 13:10:13
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <veb4j5$3kjt3$2@dont-email.me>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
User-Agent : Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.11.0
On 10/10/2024 23:30, MitchAlsup1 wrote:
On Thu, 10 Oct 2024 19:21:20 +0000, David Brown wrote:
 
On 10/10/2024 20:38, MitchAlsup1 wrote:
This is more a symptom of bad ISA design/evolution than of libc
writers needing superpowers.
>
No, it is not.  It has absolutely /nothing/ to do with the ISA.
>
For example, if ISA contains an MM instruction which is the
embodiment of memmove() then absolutely no heroics are needed
of desired in the libc call.
>
>
The existence of a dedicated assembly instruction does not let you write
an efficient memmove() in standard C.
        {
            memmove( p, q, size );
       }
 
What is that circular reference supposed to do?  The whole discussion has been about the /fact/ that you cannot implement the "memmove" function in a C standard library using fully portable standard C code.
Do you think you can just write this :
void * memmove(void * s1, const void  * s2, size_t n)
{
return memmove(s1, s2, n);
}
in your library's source?
You can implement "memcpy" in portable standard C, using a loop and array or pointer syntax (somewhat like your loop below, but with the correct type for the index).  But you cannot do so for memmove() because you cannot identify the direction you need to run your loop in an efficient and fully portable manner.
It does not matter what the target is - the target is totally irrelevant for /portable/ standard C code.  If the target made a difference, it would not be portable!
I can't understand why this is causing you difficulty.
Perhaps you simply didn't understand what you wrote a few posts back, when you claimed that the reason people writing portable standard C code cannot write an efficient memmove() implementation is "a symptom of bad ISA design".

Where the compiler produces the MM instruction itself. Looks damn
close to standard C to me !!
OR
       for( int i = 0, i < size; i++ )
            p[i] = q[i];
 Which gets compiled to memcpy()--also looks to be standard C.
OR
        p_struct = q_struct;
 gets compiled to::
        memmove( &p_struct, &q_struct, sizeof( q_struct ) );
 also looks to be std C.
Those are standard C, yes.  And a good compiler will optimise such code.   And if the target has some kind of scalable vector support or other dedicated instructions for moving or copying memory, it can do a better job of optimising the code.
That has /nothing/ to do with the point under discussion.
I think you are simply confused about what you are talking about here. Either you don't know what is meant by writing portable standard C, or you don't know what is meant by implementing a C standard library, or you haven't actually been reading the posts you replied to.  You seem determined to make the point that /your/ ISA has useful and efficient instructions and features for memory copy functionality, while the x86 ISA does not, and that means /your/ ISA is good design and the x86 ISA is bad design.
Now, I will fully agree with you that the x86 is not a good design.  The modern x86 processor devices are proof that you /can/ polish a turd. And I fully agree with you that instructions for arbitrary length vector instructions of various sorts (of which memory copying is the simplest operation) have many advantages over SIMD using fixed-size vector registers.  (ARM and RISC-V also agree with you there.)
But that is all irrelevant to the discussion.

Date Sujet#  Auteur
16 Apr 24 * Re: Whether something is RISC or not (Re: PDP-8 theology, not Concertina II Progress)237Lawrence D'Oliveiro
16 Apr 24 `* Re: Whether something is RISC or not (Re: PDP-8 theology, not Concertina II Progress)236David Brown
16 Apr 24  +- Re: Whether something is RISC or not (Re: PDP-8 theology, not Concertina II Progress)1MitchAlsup1
26 May 24  +- Re: Whether something is RISC or not (Re: PDP-8 theology, not Concertina II Progress)1MitchAlsup1
1 Oct 24  `* Re: Whether something is RISC or not (Re: PDP-8 theology, not Concertina II Progress)233MitchAlsup1
1 Oct 24   `* Re: Whether something is RISC or not (Re: PDP-8 theology, not Concertina II Progress)232Thomas Koenig
1 Oct 24    +* Re: Whether something is RISC or not (Re: PDP-8 theology, not Concertina II Progress)225MitchAlsup1
2 Oct 24    i+* Re: Whether something is RISC or not (Re: PDP-8 theology, not Concertina II Progress)223Brett
3 Oct 24    ii`* Re: Whether something is RISC or not (Re: PDP-8 theology, not Concertina II Progress)222Lawrence D'Oliveiro
3 Oct 24    ii +- Re: Whether something is RISC or not (Re: PDP-8 theology, not Concertina II Progress)1Brett
3 Oct 24    ii +- Re: Whether something is RISC or not (Re: PDP-8 theology, not Concertina II Progress)1Anton Ertl
3 Oct 24    ii `* Re: Whether something is RISC or not (Re: PDP-8 theology, not Concertina II Progress)219David Brown
3 Oct 24    ii  `* Byte ordering (was: Whether something is RISC or not)218Anton Ertl
3 Oct 24    ii   +- Re: Byte ordering (was: Whether something is RISC or not)1David Brown
4 Oct 24    ii   +* Re: Byte ordering (was: Whether something is RISC or not)215Lawrence D'Oliveiro
4 Oct 24    ii   i+- Re: Byte ordering1Lynn Wheeler
4 Oct 24    ii   i+* Re: Byte ordering (was: Whether something is RISC or not)211David Brown
4 Oct 24    ii   ii`* Re: Byte ordering (was: Whether something is RISC or not)210Anton Ertl
4 Oct 24    ii   ii +* Re: Byte ordering5BGB
5 Oct 24    ii   ii i`* Re: Byte ordering4MitchAlsup1
5 Oct 24    ii   ii i +* Re: Byte ordering2BGB
5 Oct 24    ii   ii i i`- Re: Byte ordering1Lawrence D'Oliveiro
5 Oct 24    ii   ii i `- Re: Byte ordering1Lawrence D'Oliveiro
5 Oct 24    ii   ii +* Re: Byte ordering (was: Whether something is RISC or not)13Lawrence D'Oliveiro
5 Oct 24    ii   ii i`* Re: Byte ordering (was: Whether something is RISC or not)12Brett
5 Oct 24    ii   ii i `* Re: Byte ordering (was: Whether something is RISC or not)11Anton Ertl
5 Oct 24    ii   ii i  `* Re: Byte ordering (was: Whether something is RISC or not)10Michael S
6 Oct 24    ii   ii i   +- Re: Byte ordering1Terje Mathisen
6 Oct 24    ii   ii i   `* Re: Byte ordering (was: Whether something is RISC or not)8Brett
7 Oct 24    ii   ii i    `* Re: Byte ordering (was: Whether something is RISC or not)7Lawrence D'Oliveiro
7 Oct 24    ii   ii i     `* Re: Byte ordering (was: Whether something is RISC or not)6Brett
7 Oct 24    ii   ii i      `* Re: Byte ordering (was: Whether something is RISC or not)5Michael S
7 Oct 24    ii   ii i       +* Re: Byte ordering2Stefan Monnier
7 Oct 24    ii   ii i       i`- Re: Byte ordering1Michael S
7 Oct 24    ii   ii i       `* Re: Byte ordering (was: Whether something is RISC or not)2Lawrence D'Oliveiro
8 Oct 24    ii   ii i        `- Re: Byte ordering1Terje Mathisen
6 Oct 24    ii   ii `* Re: Byte ordering191David Brown
6 Oct 24    ii   ii  `* Re: Byte ordering190Anton Ertl
6 Oct 24    ii   ii   `* Re: Byte ordering189John Dallman
7 Oct 24    ii   ii    +* Re: Byte ordering20Lawrence D'Oliveiro
8 Oct 24    ii   ii    i`* Re: Byte ordering19John Dallman
9 Oct 24    ii   ii    i +- VMS/NT memory management (was: Byte ordering)1Stefan Monnier
15 Oct 24    ii   ii    i +* Re: Byte ordering2Lawrence D'Oliveiro
15 Oct 24    ii   ii    i i`- Re: Byte ordering1MitchAlsup1
15 Oct 24    ii   ii    i `* Re: Byte ordering15Lawrence D'Oliveiro
15 Oct 24    ii   ii    i  +* Re: Byte ordering3Michael S
15 Oct 24    ii   ii    i  i+- Re: Byte ordering1John Dallman
18 Oct 24    ii   ii    i  i`- Re: Byte ordering1Lawrence D'Oliveiro
15 Oct 24    ii   ii    i  +* Re: Byte ordering9John Dallman
16 Oct 24    ii   ii    i  i+* Re: Byte ordering7George Neuner
16 Oct 24    ii   ii    i  ii`* Re: Byte ordering6Terje Mathisen
16 Oct 24    ii   ii    i  ii `* Re: Byte ordering5David Brown
17 Oct 24    ii   ii    i  ii  +* Re: Byte ordering2George Neuner
17 Oct 24    ii   ii    i  ii  i`- Re: Byte ordering1David Brown
17 Oct 24    ii   ii    i  ii  `* Re: clouds, not Byte ordering2John Levine
17 Oct 24    ii   ii    i  ii   `- Re: clouds, not Byte ordering1David Brown
18 Oct 24    ii   ii    i  i`- Re: Byte ordering1Lawrence D'Oliveiro
16 Oct 24    ii   ii    i  `* Re: Byte ordering2Paul A. Clayton
18 Oct 24    ii   ii    i   `- Re: Microkernels & Capabilities (was Re: Byte ordering)1Lawrence D'Oliveiro
7 Oct 24    ii   ii    `* 80286 protected mode168Anton Ertl
7 Oct 24    ii   ii     +* Re: 80286 protected mode5Lars Poulsen
7 Oct 24    ii   ii     i`* Re: 80286 protected mode4Terje Mathisen
7 Oct 24    ii   ii     i +- Re: 80286 protected mode1Michael S
7 Oct 24    ii   ii     i `* Re: 80286 protected mode2Lawrence D'Oliveiro
8 Oct 24    ii   ii     i  `- Re: 80286 protected mode1Terje Mathisen
7 Oct 24    ii   ii     +* Re: 80286 protected mode3Brett
7 Oct 24    ii   ii     i`* Re: 80286 protected mode2Michael S
7 Oct 24    ii   ii     i `- Re: 80286 protected mode1Brett
7 Oct 24    ii   ii     +- Re: 80286 protected mode1Lawrence D'Oliveiro
8 Oct 24    ii   ii     +* Re: 80286 protected mode152MitchAlsup1
8 Oct 24    ii   ii     i+* Re: 80286 protected mode4Lawrence D'Oliveiro
8 Oct 24    ii   ii     ii`* Re: 80286 protected mode3MitchAlsup1
9 Oct 24    ii   ii     ii +- Re: 80286 protected mode1David Brown
15 Oct 24    ii   ii     ii `- Re: 80286 protected mode1Lawrence D'Oliveiro
8 Oct 24    ii   ii     i`* Re: 80286 protected mode147Anton Ertl
8 Oct 24    ii   ii     i +- Re: 80286 protected mode1Robert Finch
9 Oct 24    ii   ii     i `* Re: 80286 protected mode145David Brown
9 Oct 24    ii   ii     i  +* Re: 80286 protected mode79MitchAlsup1
9 Oct 24    ii   ii     i  i`* Re: 80286 protected mode78David Brown
9 Oct 24    ii   ii     i  i `* Re: 80286 protected mode77Stephen Fuld
10 Oct 24    ii   ii     i  i  +* Re: 80286 protected mode2MitchAlsup1
10 Oct 24    ii   ii     i  i  i`- Re: 80286 protected mode1David Brown
10 Oct 24    ii   ii     i  i  +- Re: 80286 protected mode1David Brown
11 Oct 24    ii   ii     i  i  `* Re: 80286 protected mode73Tim Rentsch
15 Oct 24    ii   ii     i  i   `* Re: 80286 protected mode72Stefan Monnier
15 Oct 24    ii   ii     i  i    +* Re: 80286 protected mode30MitchAlsup1
16 Oct 24    ii   ii     i  i    i+* Re: 80286 protected mode25MitchAlsup1
16 Oct 24    ii   ii     i  i    ii+* Re: C and turtles, 80286 protected mode13John Levine
16 Oct 24    ii   ii     i  i    iii+* Re: C and turtles, 80286 protected mode7MitchAlsup1
16 Oct 24    ii   ii     i  i    iiii`* Re: C and turtles, 80286 protected mode6John Levine
17 Oct 24    ii   ii     i  i    iiii `* Re: C and turtles, 80286 protected mode5Thomas Koenig
20 Oct 24    ii   ii     i  i    iiii  `* Re: C and turtles, 80286 protected mode4Lawrence D'Oliveiro
20 Oct 24    ii   ii     i  i    iiii   `* Re: C and turtles, 80286 protected mode3George Neuner
22 Oct 24    ii   ii     i  i    iiii    `* Re: C and turtles, 80286 protected mode2Tim Rentsch
22 Oct 24    ii   ii     i  i    iiii     `- Re: C and turtles, 80286 protected mode1George Neuner
16 Oct 24    ii   ii     i  i    iii+- Re: C and turtles, 80286 protected mode1David Brown
16 Oct 24    ii   ii     i  i    iii`* Re: C and turtles, 80286 protected mode4Paul A. Clayton
17 Oct 24    ii   ii     i  i    iii +- Re: C and turtles, 80286 protected mode1David Brown
20 Oct 24    ii   ii     i  i    iii `* Re: C and turtles, 80286 protected mode2Lawrence D'Oliveiro
20 Oct 24    ii   ii     i  i    iii  `- Re: C and turtles, 80286 protected mode1Paul A. Clayton
16 Oct 24    ii   ii     i  i    ii+* Re: 80286 protected mode7Thomas Koenig
17 Oct 24    ii   ii     i  i    ii+* Re: 80286 protected mode3George Neuner
17 Oct 24    ii   ii     i  i    ii`- Re: 80286 protected mode1Tim Rentsch
16 Oct 24    ii   ii     i  i    i+* Re: 80286 protected mode3David Brown
17 Oct 24    ii   ii     i  i    i`- Re: 80286 protected mode1Tim Rentsch
16 Oct 24    ii   ii     i  i    `* Re: 80286 protected mode41David Brown
9 Oct 24    ii   ii     i  +* Re: 80286 protected mode51Thomas Koenig
13 Oct 24    ii   ii     i  `* Re: 80286 protected mode14Anton Ertl
8 Oct 24    ii   ii     `* Re: 80286 protected mode6John Levine
6 Oct 24    ii   i`* Re: Byte ordering (was: Whether something is RISC or not)2Michael S
4 Oct 24    ii   `- Re: Byte ordering (was: Whether something is RISC or not)1John Dallman
2 Oct 24    i`- Re: Whether something is RISC or not (Re: PDP-8 theology, not Concertina II Progress)1Thomas Koenig
2 Oct 24    +* Re: Whether something is RISC or not (Re: PDP-8 theology, not Concertina II Progress)5David Schultz
3 Oct 24    `- Re: Whether something is RISC or not (Re: PDP-8 theology, not Concertina II Progress)1Lawrence D'Oliveiro

Haut de la page

Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.

NewsPortal