rwessel (rwessel.delete@this.yahoo.com) on September 29, 2021 6:55 am wrote:
> NoSpammer (no.delete@this.spam.com) on September 29, 2021 3:53 am wrote:
> > dmcq (dmcq.delete@this.fano.co.uk) on September 28, 2021 2:21 pm wrote:
> > > The bits could vary between implementations so letting designers optimise better. More conditions
> > > could be saved. The only problem I can see is big-little systems and they could just zero the bits
> > > if moving between different cores - with the current system how can we tell if the form optimised
> > > by one is okay for the other? And yes it seems like an unnecessary waste of opcodes and code space.
> >
> > I think 3 instructions make very simple implementations possible for the low-end. Per example:
> > Initial instruction is movsb until aligned or end.
> > Middle instruction is movs[your core's biggest R/W chunk]
> > End instruction is movsb until end.
> >
> > Why have more state when the state can already be in the registers and PC?
>
>
> Remember that in the general case, you can't get both operands aligned, so you can't avoid
> dealing with at least some of that in the "middle" instruction. But the point is, how
> hard could it be to detect the case where the initial or final instruction apply?

And thinking yet again about it why bother even saving any bits? AT most it can get by with some bits that are passed between the micro-ops. If an interrupt happs one can just dump the bits and start anew from where stopped. I'm basically saying just have one op and if they want three have the one op split into three. Then there's no need to start wondering about describng what the state is like when restarting the second operation.