Re: Instruction Parcel Size

Liste des GroupesRevenir à c arch 
Sujet : Re: Instruction Parcel Size
De : mitchalsup (at) *nospam* aol.com (MitchAlsup1)
Groupes : comp.arch
Date : 09. Mar 2025, 19:09:22
Autres entêtes
Organisation : Rocksolid Light
Message-ID : <d5f658433671b1141b3b76b687f3f912@www.novabbs.org>
References : 1 2 3 4
User-Agent : Rocksolid Light
On Sun, 9 Mar 2025 12:36:59 +0000, Robert Finch wrote:

Conditional Branches (compare and branch) are 48-bit
pp-R-TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT-aaaaaa-bbbbbb-A-ffff-ooooooo-01
>
Careful choice of oooooo may allow it to contain the condition
in the ffff field expanding the displacement to 25-effective
bits.
>
Gained a bit in the displacement field by allocating another row of
opcodes and moving the 'R' bit into the opcode. So, now its
>
pp-TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT-aaaaaa-bbbbbb-A-ffff-oooRooo-01
>
a longer form of branches could also be made using a 96-bit instruction
>
pp-{68{T}}-aaaaaa-bbbbbb-A-ffff-oooRooo-10
>
been pondering coming up with a shorter form (24-bit) branches, maybe by
comparing to zero, BEQZ / BNEZ. Say,
My 66000 uses 29 of the available 32 Conditions in the compare to
zero and branch instruction. 6 signed integer, 4 unsigned integer,
8 float, 8 double, and I stuck SVC, SVR, and RET in this instruction
too.

TTTTTTTTT-aaaaaa-ooooooo-00
>
would be good only for word-size integer value comparisons, but that
might work a significant portion of the time.
>
Having 20 T's gives 21.5 bits of effective displacement, as the
displacement T's are multiplied by three.
>
Using up eight of the free opcodes, so there is only about 13 left now,
but I think it was worth it to get a branch displacement bit.
>
Hmmm, I could get rid of the 'A' bit by moving it to a control register.
One would likely want absolute addressing for branches for the entire
program, not just one-at-a-time selection.

Date Sujet#  Auteur
30 Jan 25 * Misc: Ongoing status...25BGB
31 Jan 25 +* Re: Misc: Ongoing status...19MitchAlsup1
31 Jan 25 i`* Re: Misc: Ongoing status...18BGB
31 Jan 25 i `* Re: Misc: Ongoing status...17MitchAlsup1
1 Feb 25 i  `* Re: Misc: Ongoing status...16BGB
1 Feb 25 i   `* Re: Misc: Ongoing status...15MitchAlsup1
1 Feb 25 i    `* Re: Misc: Ongoing status...14BGB
2 Feb 25 i     `* Re: Misc: Ongoing status...13MitchAlsup1
2 Feb 25 i      +- Re: Misc: Ongoing status...1BGB
2 Feb 25 i      `* Caller-saved vs. callee-saved registers (was: Misc: Ongoing status...)11Anton Ertl
2 Feb 25 i       `* Re: Caller-saved vs. callee-saved registers10BGB
2 Feb 25 i        `* Re: Caller-saved vs. callee-saved registers9BGB
3 Feb 25 i         `* Re: Caller-saved vs. callee-saved registers8MitchAlsup1
3 Feb 25 i          `* Re: Caller-saved vs. callee-saved registers7BGB
3 Feb 25 i           `* Re: Caller-saved vs. callee-saved registers6MitchAlsup1
3 Feb 25 i            `* Re: Caller-saved vs. callee-saved registers5BGB
4 Feb 25 i             `* Re: Caller-saved vs. callee-saved registers4MitchAlsup1
4 Feb 25 i              `* Re: Caller-saved vs. callee-saved registers3BGB
4 Feb 25 i               `* Re: Caller-saved vs. callee-saved registers2MitchAlsup1
5 Feb 25 i                `- Re: Caller-saved vs. callee-saved registers1BGB
9 Mar 25 `* Instruction Parcel Size5Robert Finch
9 Mar 25  `* Re: Instruction Parcel Size4MitchAlsup1
9 Mar 25   +- Re: Instruction Parcel Size1Robert Finch
9 Mar 25   `* Re: Instruction Parcel Size2Robert Finch
9 Mar 25    `- Re: Instruction Parcel Size1MitchAlsup1

Haut de la page

Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.

NewsPortal