Liste des Groupes | Revenir à c arch |
On Mon, 10 Mar 2025 22:40:55 +0000, BGB wrote:I got used to a lot of micro-computer maps which have RAM at low end and ROM at the high end.
On 3/7/2025 9:28 PM, MitchAlsup1 wrote:Not bad.On Sat, 8 Mar 2025 2:49:50 +0000, BGB wrote:>
>
------------------------>>
I guess, while a person could do something like (in C):
_BitInt(1048576) bmp;
_Boolean b;
...
b=(bmp>>i)&1; //*blarg* (shift here would be absurdly expensive)
>
This is liklely to be rare vs more traditional strategies, say:
uint64_t *bmp;
int b, i;
...
b=(bmp[i>>6]>>(i&63))&1;
Question: How do you handle the case where the bit vector is an odd
number of bits in width ?? Say <3, 5, 7, 17, ...>
>
It is rare for bitmap bits to not be a power of 2...
>
I would guess, at least for C, something like (for 3 bits):
uint32_t *bmp;
uint64_t bv;
int i, b, bp;
...
bp=i*3;
bv=*(uint64_t *)(bmp+(bp>>5));
b=(bv>>(bp&31))&7;
>
Could apply to anything up to 31 bits.
Could do similar with __int128 (or uint128_t), which extends it up to 63------------
bits.My 66000 has CARRY-SL/SR which performs a double wide operand shiftedMc 68020 had instructions to access bit-fields that cross word>
boundaries.
>
I guess one could argue the use-case for adding a generic funnel shift
instruction.
by a single wide count (0..63) and produces a double wide result {IO}.
If I added it, it would probably be a 64-bit encoding (generally neededBy placing the width in position {31..37} you can compress this down
for 4R).
to 3-Operand.
----------Clearly, you want to support C semantics--but you can do this in a wayArchitecture is more about what gets left OUT than what gets left IN.>
Well, except in this case it was more a question of trying to fit it in
with C semantics (and not consideration for more ISA features).
that also supports languages with real bit-field support.
---------------There are still some limitations, for example:<y 66000 only has 8 CPU CRs, and even these are R/W through MMI/O
In my current implementation, CSR's are very limited (may only be used
to load and store CSRs; not do RMW operations on CSRs).
space. All the other (effective) CRs are auto loaded in line quanta.
This mechanism allows one CPU to figure out what another CPU is up to
simply by meandering through its CRs...
Though, have noted that seemingly some number of actual RISC-V cores
also have this limitation.
>
>
A more drastic option might be to try to rework the hardware interfaces
and memory map hopefully enough to try to make it possible to run an OS
like Linux, but there doesn't really seem to be a standardized set of
hardware interfaces or memory map defined.
>
Some amount of SOC's though seem to use a map like:
00000000..0000FFFF: ROM goes here.
00010000..0XXXXXXX: RAM goes here.
ZXXXXXXX..FFFFFFFF: Hardware / MMIO
My 66000::How does one reference DRAM vs MMI/O at the same address using a LD / ST instruction?
00 0000000000000000..FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF: DRAM
01 0000000000000000..FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF: MMI/O
10 0000000000000000..FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF: config
11 0000000000000000..FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF: ROM
Whatever you are trying to do, you won't run out of address space untilAre there any CRs accessible with any instructions besides LD / ST?
64 bits becomes insufficient. Note: all HW interfaces are in config
space
and all CRs are in MMI/O space.
------------Coming up with names is surprisingly difficult. I got into a discussion with a colleague a while ago about this. They were having difficulty coding something an it turned out to be simply what names to choose for routines.They seem to also be asking for a UEFI based boot process, but thisBoot ROM should be big enough that no BOOT ROM will ever exceed its
would require having a bigger BootROM (can't likely fit a UEFI
implementation into 32K). Seems that the idea is to have the UEFI BIOS
boot the kernel directly as an ELF image (traditionally UEFI was always
PE/COFF based?...).
size.
--------------There is a probable need to move away from the "BJX2" name, which as
noted, has some unfortunate connotations (turns out it was also used for
a lewd act) and seems to be triggering to Google's automatic content
filtering (probably for a similar reason).
Hilarious--and reason enough to change names.Yes, please LD / ST it is so much clearer what is going on. Less trouble getting confused by the placement of operands.
When you do change names, can you spell LD and ST instead of MOV ??
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.