When I first heard about micro-ops I envisioned them as being smaller
than the instructions in the ISA because of the term "micro". For
instance 16 or even 12-bits. I was having a heck of time trying to
implement with 16-bit micro-ops. Then I clued in, why not just make them
bigger? They're not really micro-ops, it is more like mega-ops.
AMD uses 64-bit micro-ops, see the link I posted recently (and
again, below). It is actually a RISC-like ISA, which makes sense,
because you don't want to spend a lot of time decoding micro-ops.
They have 64 bit micro-op length, and most fields they could have
in any instruction has its unique place.
https://bughunters.google.com/blog/5424842357473280/zen-and-the-art-of-microcode-hacking
>
Current micro-op structure:
>
typedef struct packed {
logic v; // valid bit
logic [2:0] count; // number of micro-ops for instruction
logic [2:0] num; // the micro-op of the instruction
logic [1:0] xRs2; // extended register selection bits
logic [1:0] xRs1;
logic [1:0] xRd;
logic [3:0] xop4;
instruction_t ins; // The instruction
} micro_op_t;
Hmm... I don't know what your ISA looks like, but having the
original instruction looks strange. Why not take a page from
AMD's book? It looks like a reasonable philosophy, and obviously it
works for them, or they would have done something different by now.
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.