By: Wilco (wilco.dijkstra.delete@this.ntlworld.com), November 7, 2019 5:55 pm
Room: Moderated Discussions
Michael S (already5chosen.delete@this.yahoo.com) on November 6, 2019 1:37 am wrote:
> Wilco (wilco.dijkstra.delete@this.ntlworld.com) on November 4, 2019 1:31 pm wrote:
> > Michael S (already5chosen.delete@this.yahoo.com) on November 4, 2019 10:17 am wrote:
> >
> > > Then it should be about cmoves.
> > > RISC-V conditional branches are among the best in the industry.
> >
> > I have to disagree there. The branch offsets are too small due to having 2 register
> > fields in all conditional branches. There is no backup if the offset is too large -
> > even unconditional branches have a significantly smaller range than any other ISA.
> >
> > Register-immediate comparisons are the most common by far. The zero case is supported via
> > the zero register, however it wastes at least 5 bits vs a dedicated branch-if-zero instruction
> > (CBZ on AArch64 has a +-1MByte range vs +-4KB). Since comparisons with a non-zero immediate
> > still require separate compare and branch instructions, having the reg-reg branch format
> > isn't very useful, particularly if it is the only conditional branch format.
> >
> > This shows there are very good reasons most ISAs settled on using condition codes. They
> > require 9-10 bits less compared to reg-reg branch formats, enabling significantly larger
> > branch offsets and less encoding space dedicated to conditional branches.
> >
> > Wilco
> >
>
> In specific case of 32-bit fixed-point ISA, I don't see 2 register
> specifiers as something that prevents decent displacement range.
>
> Altera Nios2 has +/- 32KB coverage and that with 2 LS bits of displacement not used (reserved).
>
> MIPSr6 "compact" reg-reg branches have coverage of +/- 128KB.
That means both use 1/8th of the encoding space for conditional branches - quite a lot!
However there is no doubt that a reg-reg branch format implies much smaller branch ranges. AArch64 has +-1MByte, ie. an extra 8 offset bits, and yet uses only 1/512th of the total encoding space!
> RISC-V opted for much shorter coverage (+/- 4KB), but lack of encode space in 32-bit fixed-width
> form does not look like the real reason for that.
Well RISC-V uses 2 bits to make space for 16-bit instruction encodings and then uses one bit of offset to allow 16-bit branch destinations. Keeping the main opcode 7 bits rather than use a larger share of the encoding space means there is very little range left for the offset.
Even if they used 1/8th of the encoding space like MIPS, branch offsets would be at most +-16KB due to the extra 3 bits overhead.
I could only guess what is the real reason:
> - They wanted conditional branches in exactly the same format as other I-format instructions (why immediate
> field in I-format is so much shorter than in other MIPS-like instruction sets is a separate question)?
> - They thought that 4KB is sufficient, because Patterson's books say so?
> - They wanted to leave as much as possible of opcode space for future extensions?
> - They wanted maximal compatibility with "compressed" form?
> I can invent more guesses, but don't want.
I think it's mostly the last and the first reason.
> I don't like RISC-V choice from the point of pure aesthetics, but agree
> with notion that (+/- 4KB) causes very little troubles in practice.
It's only not a problem if there is a good backup instruction. Many functions are large, so you do need to deal with it (it's very hard in Thumb-1 for example...). There isn't any conditional branch with a larger range, so you end up having to use a conditional branch across an unconditional one (most microarchitectures don't like that).
Wilco
> Wilco (wilco.dijkstra.delete@this.ntlworld.com) on November 4, 2019 1:31 pm wrote:
> > Michael S (already5chosen.delete@this.yahoo.com) on November 4, 2019 10:17 am wrote:
> >
> > > Then it should be about cmoves.
> > > RISC-V conditional branches are among the best in the industry.
> >
> > I have to disagree there. The branch offsets are too small due to having 2 register
> > fields in all conditional branches. There is no backup if the offset is too large -
> > even unconditional branches have a significantly smaller range than any other ISA.
> >
> > Register-immediate comparisons are the most common by far. The zero case is supported via
> > the zero register, however it wastes at least 5 bits vs a dedicated branch-if-zero instruction
> > (CBZ on AArch64 has a +-1MByte range vs +-4KB). Since comparisons with a non-zero immediate
> > still require separate compare and branch instructions, having the reg-reg branch format
> > isn't very useful, particularly if it is the only conditional branch format.
> >
> > This shows there are very good reasons most ISAs settled on using condition codes. They
> > require 9-10 bits less compared to reg-reg branch formats, enabling significantly larger
> > branch offsets and less encoding space dedicated to conditional branches.
> >
> > Wilco
> >
>
> In specific case of 32-bit fixed-point ISA, I don't see 2 register
> specifiers as something that prevents decent displacement range.
>
> Altera Nios2 has +/- 32KB coverage and that with 2 LS bits of displacement not used (reserved).
>
> MIPSr6 "compact" reg-reg branches have coverage of +/- 128KB.
That means both use 1/8th of the encoding space for conditional branches - quite a lot!
However there is no doubt that a reg-reg branch format implies much smaller branch ranges. AArch64 has +-1MByte, ie. an extra 8 offset bits, and yet uses only 1/512th of the total encoding space!
> RISC-V opted for much shorter coverage (+/- 4KB), but lack of encode space in 32-bit fixed-width
> form does not look like the real reason for that.
Well RISC-V uses 2 bits to make space for 16-bit instruction encodings and then uses one bit of offset to allow 16-bit branch destinations. Keeping the main opcode 7 bits rather than use a larger share of the encoding space means there is very little range left for the offset.
Even if they used 1/8th of the encoding space like MIPS, branch offsets would be at most +-16KB due to the extra 3 bits overhead.
I could only guess what is the real reason:
> - They wanted conditional branches in exactly the same format as other I-format instructions (why immediate
> field in I-format is so much shorter than in other MIPS-like instruction sets is a separate question)?
> - They thought that 4KB is sufficient, because Patterson's books say so?
> - They wanted to leave as much as possible of opcode space for future extensions?
> - They wanted maximal compatibility with "compressed" form?
> I can invent more guesses, but don't want.
I think it's mostly the last and the first reason.
> I don't like RISC-V choice from the point of pure aesthetics, but agree
> with notion that (+/- 4KB) causes very little troubles in practice.
It's only not a problem if there is a good backup instruction. Many functions are large, so you do need to deal with it (it's very hard in Thumb-1 for example...). There isn't any conditional branch with a larger range, so you end up having to use a conditional branch across an unconditional one (most microarchitectures don't like that).
Wilco
