Article: MAQSIP-RT: An HPC Benchmark
By: Ian Ollmann (iano.delete@this.apple.com), July 7, 2010 5:29 pm
Room: Moderated Discussions
Konrad Schwarz (no.spam@no.spam) on 7/7/10 wrote:
---------------------------
> Well, all my RISC machines work exactly this way, and I'm sure the x86 people > would rather not have to deal with AH, AL, AX, EAX and RAX etc.
Dunno if you think that Power still qualifies for RISC, but at least there, though they use a common register format for floating point, there is a whole set of parallel ISA for double and single precision ops that round differently in the 64-bit register. See also AltiVec and SPE with specific ISA for each.
Likewise, on the integer side, due to the arithmetic miracles of 2's complement, special instructions for smaller integer types aren't required for addition, subtraction and low-half multiplication. Just ignore the upper bits. In cases where they matter, a cheap AND or sign extend are all that are required to make full multiplication and division work.
So, I'm not really sure that your assertion is true, in that what would be required to provide full support for native arithmetic in every data type is probably relatively minor.
---------------------------
> Well, all my RISC machines work exactly this way, and I'm sure the x86 people > would rather not have to deal with AH, AL, AX, EAX and RAX etc.
Dunno if you think that Power still qualifies for RISC, but at least there, though they use a common register format for floating point, there is a whole set of parallel ISA for double and single precision ops that round differently in the 64-bit register. See also AltiVec and SPE with specific ISA for each.
Likewise, on the integer side, due to the arithmetic miracles of 2's complement, special instructions for smaller integer types aren't required for addition, subtraction and low-half multiplication. Just ignore the upper bits. In cases where they matter, a cheap AND or sign extend are all that are required to make full multiplication and division work.
So, I'm not really sure that your assertion is true, in that what would be required to provide full support for native arithmetic in every data type is probably relatively minor.
Topic | Posted By | Date |
---|---|---|
New article online: MAQSIP RT | David Kanter | 2010/06/21 11:57 AM |
Why no GCC? | Rohit | 2010/06/22 09:25 PM |
Why no GCC? | David Kanter | 2010/06/23 12:45 AM |
sun 's cc better than GCC? | Rohit | 2010/06/23 05:04 AM |
sun 's cc better than GCC? | anon | 2010/06/23 07:49 AM |
Where is the GCC optimization effort directed? | Mark Roulo | 2010/06/23 10:42 AM |
GCC is very ugly bad everywhere in 64 bits | Vincent Diepeveen | 2010/06/23 02:49 PM |
even for 64-bit arch? | anon | 2010/06/23 02:59 PM |
GCC is very ugly bad everywhere in 64 bits | ajensen | 2010/06/23 11:03 PM |
GCC is very ugly bad everywhere in 64 bits | Gabriele Svelto | 2010/06/24 02:33 AM |
GCC is very ugly bad everywhere in 64 bits | ajensen | 2010/06/24 05:32 AM |
GCC is very ugly bad everywhere in 64 bits | Gabriele Svelto | 2010/06/24 07:18 AM |
GCC is very ugly bad everywhere in 64 bits | ajensen | 2010/06/24 09:50 AM |
Why GCC is big and complicated (my guess) | Mark Roulo | 2010/06/24 12:17 PM |
Why GCC is big and complicated (my guess) | Gabriele Svelto | 2010/06/28 04:00 AM |
GCC is very ugly bad everywhere in 64 bits | Bernd Schmidt | 2010/06/24 05:46 AM |
GCC is very ugly bad everywhere in 64 bits | ajensen | 2010/06/24 09:43 AM |
GCC is very ugly bad everywhere in 64 bits | Vincent Diepeveen | 2010/06/26 02:12 PM |
GCC is very ugly bad everywhere in 64 bits | Rob Thorpe | 2010/06/24 07:47 AM |
GCC is very ugly bad everywhere in 64 bits | Anon | 2010/06/24 05:23 PM |
Where is the GCC optimization effort directed? | Gabriele Svelto | 2010/06/23 10:45 PM |
Where is the GCC optimization effort directed? | ? | 2010/06/24 01:48 AM |
Where is the GCC optimization effort directed? | Gabriele Svelto | 2010/06/24 02:29 AM |
Where is the GCC optimization effort directed? | ? | 2010/06/24 03:13 AM |
Where is the GCC optimization effort directed? | Andi Kleen | 2010/06/24 03:15 AM |
Where is the GCC optimization effort directed? | ? | 2010/06/24 04:08 AM |
Where is the GCC optimization effort directed? | Gabriele Svelto | 2010/06/24 03:54 AM |
Where is the GCC optimization effort directed? | ? | 2010/06/24 04:15 AM |
Where is the GCC optimization effort directed? | Gabriele Svelto | 2010/06/24 07:22 AM |
Where is the GCC optimization effort directed? | Rohit | 2010/06/24 03:04 AM |
Placebo effect | ? | 2010/06/24 06:37 AM |
Placebo effect | Rohit | 2010/06/24 08:45 AM |
Placebo effect | Vincent Diepeveen | 2010/06/26 02:50 PM |
Compile time | Mark Roulo | 2010/06/26 05:28 PM |
Compile time | Richard Cownie | 2010/06/27 04:44 AM |
Compile time | Mark Roulo | 2010/06/27 10:12 AM |
Compile time | Mark Roulo | 2010/06/27 10:21 AM |
Compile time | EduardoS | 2010/06/27 11:37 AM |
Compile time | Richard Cownie | 2010/06/27 04:07 PM |
Compile time & efficiency | ? | 2010/06/28 12:03 AM |
Compile time & efficiency | Mark Christiansen | 2010/06/28 06:08 AM |
Compile time & efficiency | Linus Torvalds | 2010/06/28 07:48 AM |
kernel programming language | John Simon | 2010/06/29 06:46 PM |
Compile time & efficiency | Richard Cownie | 2010/06/28 09:29 AM |
Compile time & efficiency | Linus Torvalds | 2010/06/28 11:17 AM |
Compile time & efficiency | Richard Cownie | 2010/06/28 02:16 PM |
Compile time & efficiency | Richard Cownie | 2010/06/28 06:23 PM |
Compile time & efficiency | Mark Roulo | 2010/06/29 08:31 AM |
Compile time & efficiency | Richard Cownie | 2010/06/29 11:48 AM |
Compile time & efficiency | rwessel | 2010/06/29 12:28 PM |
C is a crappy | dev | 2010/06/29 07:12 PM |
C is a crappy, but only when you push it out of it's niche | Rohit | 2010/06/30 02:11 AM |
C is a crappy | anon | 2010/06/30 02:17 AM |
C is a crappy | dev | 2010/06/30 07:59 AM |
C is a crappy | Max | 2010/07/01 04:30 AM |
C is a crappy | Michael S | 2010/07/01 07:00 AM |
C is a crappy | Konrad Schwarz | 2010/07/01 08:02 AM |
C is a crappy | Michael S | 2010/07/01 08:50 AM |
C isn't so crappy | anon | 2010/07/01 10:11 AM |
C isn't so crappy | Mikael Tillenius | 2010/07/01 11:39 AM |
C is a crappy | Konrad Schwarz | 2010/07/01 11:22 AM |
C is a crappy | Max | 2010/07/02 08:44 AM |
C is a crappy | rwessel | 2010/07/02 12:33 PM |
C is a crappy | anon | 2010/07/02 01:17 PM |
C is a crappy | Max | 2010/07/02 02:56 PM |
C is a crappy | Max | 2010/07/02 03:13 PM |
C is a crappy | rwessel | 2010/07/02 03:32 PM |
C is a crappy | Max | 2010/07/02 04:19 PM |
C is a crappy | Gabriele Svelto | 2010/07/05 05:25 AM |
C is a crappy | gallier2 | 2010/07/02 12:14 AM |
C is a crappy | Ian Ollmann | 2010/07/06 03:07 PM |
Portability | Max | 2010/07/06 03:37 PM |
C is a crappy | hobold | 2010/07/07 02:31 AM |
C is a crappy | Ian Ollmann | 2010/07/07 05:18 PM |
failure to standardize types | Carlie Coats | 2010/07/07 04:11 AM |
C is a crappy | Konrad Schwarz | 2010/07/07 08:34 AM |
C is a crappy | Ian Ollmann | 2010/07/07 05:29 PM |
C is a crappy NOT | Konrad Schwarz | 2010/07/08 12:29 AM |
C is a crappy | anon | 2010/07/01 10:40 PM |
C type safety | ? | 2010/07/02 01:10 AM |
C type safety | anon | 2010/07/02 11:02 PM |
C is a crappy | dev | 2010/07/03 04:51 PM |
C is a crappy | anon | 2010/07/03 07:02 PM |
C is a crappy | dev | 2010/07/05 07:27 AM |
C is a crappy | ? | 2010/07/05 09:05 AM |
C is a crappy | anonymous | 2010/07/07 08:32 AM |
C is a crappy | ? | 2010/07/07 10:48 PM |
C is a crappy | Anon | 2010/07/08 12:53 AM |
C is a crappy and a crappie is a fish | anonymous | 2010/07/03 07:24 PM |
Compile time & efficiency | Michael S | 2010/06/29 03:18 AM |
Compile time & efficiency | rwessel | 2010/06/29 12:20 PM |
Compile time & efficiency | someone | 2010/06/30 11:03 AM |
Compile time & efficiency | Jouni Osmala | 2010/07/02 05:29 AM |
Compile time & efficiency | Max | 2010/06/28 05:05 PM |
Compile time & efficiency | EduardoS | 2010/06/28 05:11 PM |
Compile time & efficiency | Michael S | 2010/06/29 03:33 AM |
Compile time | Foo_ | 2010/06/28 09:03 AM |
sun 's cc better than GCC? | Silent | 2010/06/23 06:19 PM |
sun 's cc better than GCC? | Foo_ | 2010/06/23 07:06 PM |
sun 's cc better than GCC? | Andi Kleen | 2010/06/24 02:49 AM |
sun 's versus gcc | Vincent Diepeveen | 2010/06/23 03:07 PM |
Why no GCC? | Carlie Coats | 2010/06/23 05:11 AM |