Re: Why I've Dropped In

On Wed, 11 Jun 2025 17:34:54 +0000, quadibloc wrote:

On Wed, 11 Jun 2025 16:49:06 +0000, MitchAlsup1 wrote:

On Wed, 11 Jun 2025 14:12:04 +0000, quadibloc wrote:

>

Therefore, I reduced the index register and base register fields to
three bits each, using only some of the 32 integer registers for those
purposes.

>

This is going to hurt register allocation.

>
Yes. It will. Unfortunately.
>
Basically, as should be apparent by now, my overriding goal in defining
the Concertina II architecture - and its predecessor as well - was to
make it "just as good", or at least "just _about_ as good", as both the
68020 and the IBM System/360.
>
This meant that I had to be able to fit base plus index plus
displacement into 32 bits, since the System/360 did that, and I had to
have 16-bit displacements because the 68020, and indeed x86 and most
microprocessors did that.

There is enough evidence that 12-bit positive displacement (/360 model)
is insufficient for modern applications, that I was surprised the RISC-V
went in that direction. EMBench has many subroutines with more than 4K
of stack variables that cause RISC-V to emit a LUI just to set the 12th
or 13th bit and access. SPARC had enough problems with 13-bits that any-
one with their ear to the rail should have heard the consternation.

And I had to have register-to-register operate instructions that fit
into only 16 bits. Because the System/360 had them, and indeed so do
many microprocessors.
>
Otherwise, my ISA would be clearly and demonstrably inferior. Where I
couldn't attain a full match, I tried to be at least "almost" as good.
So either my 16-bit operate instructions have to come in pairs, and have
a very restricted set of operations, or they require the overhead of a
block header. I couldn't attain the goal of matching the S/360
completely, but at least I stayed close.
>
So while having 32 registers like a RISC, I ended up having some
purposes for which I could only use a set of eight registers. Not great,
but it was the tradeoff that was left to me given the choice I made.
>
So here it is - an ISA that offers RISC-like simplicity of decoding, but
an instruction set that approaches CISC in code compactness - and which
offers a choice of RISC, CISC, or VLIW programming styles. Which may
lead to VLIW speed and efficiency on suitable implementations.
>
John Savard