By: Adrian (a.delete@this.acm.org), November 2, 2019 10:33 am
Room: Moderated Discussions
Ronald Maas (ronaldjmaas.delete@this.gmail.com) on November 2, 2019 10:02 am wrote:
> Heikki Kultala (heikki.kultala.delete@this.tuni.fi) on November 2, 2019 2:31 am wrote:
> > And then ARMv8 has smart non-riscy things like:
> >
> > * More advanced addressing modes
> > * Paired loads and stores
> >
> > Which can save huge amount of instructions.
> >
>
> Someone from the RISC-V team made a video comparing various ISAs
>
> The diagram on the 18:30 mark shows RV64G requires 10% more instructions compared to ARMv8.
>
> Not a huge difference in my opinion.
>
> Ronald
>
That might be true for whole programs, but for critical loops it is not uncommon for RISC-V to need a double number of instructions compared to better instruction sets, e.g. ARMv8, x86 or POWER.
The answer to that of the RISC-V architects is that any high-performance implementation of RISC-V must do instruction-pair fusion.
I refuse to believe to believe that instruction-pair fusion is simpler or better than the trivial enhancement of the instruction encoding to cover the more complex instructions that are needed in almost all loops, e.g. either with indexed or auto-indexed addressing.
> Heikki Kultala (heikki.kultala.delete@this.tuni.fi) on November 2, 2019 2:31 am wrote:
> > And then ARMv8 has smart non-riscy things like:
> >
> > * More advanced addressing modes
> > * Paired loads and stores
> >
> > Which can save huge amount of instructions.
> >
>
> Someone from the RISC-V team made a video comparing various ISAs
>
> The diagram on the 18:30 mark shows RV64G requires 10% more instructions compared to ARMv8.
>
> Not a huge difference in my opinion.
>
> Ronald
>
That might be true for whole programs, but for critical loops it is not uncommon for RISC-V to need a double number of instructions compared to better instruction sets, e.g. ARMv8, x86 or POWER.
The answer to that of the RISC-V architects is that any high-performance implementation of RISC-V must do instruction-pair fusion.
I refuse to believe to believe that instruction-pair fusion is simpler or better than the trivial enhancement of the instruction encoding to cover the more complex instructions that are needed in almost all loops, e.g. either with indexed or auto-indexed addressing.
