By: Linus Torvalds (torvalds.delete@this.osdl.org), May 16, 2007 3:24 pm
Room: Moderated Discussions
IntelUser2000 (Intel_user2000@yahoo.ca) on 5/16/07 wrote:
>
>BTW, why would they take the legacy FPU to 128-bit anyway??
>I think they are still 64-bits, exactly similar to Yonah.
Legacy FP is 80 bits, not 64. And I believe that it is also
usually expanded by a few bits internally, in order to be
able to do 80-bit complex math (trig etc) more easily and
get all the nasty results right within one ULP even though
you have intermediate results.
So I think the legacy FP path tends to be on the order of
82 bits or so, not 64.
But yeah, I don't see any reason to do a 128-bit path,
other than in specific cases (ie the multiplier would
need to have 128-bit internal paths at some point, since
the mantissa in a 80-bit FP value is 64 bits).
Of course, you could probably make the case that nobody
actually cares about legacy 80-bit FP any more,
and not even implement it. I think that's what all the
x86 software emulators do (except on Itanium, which I
think has full hw support for the 80-bit extended math).
But I don't see Intel or AMD throwing out their existing
support for 80-bit math.
Or did you mean something else?
Linus
>
>BTW, why would they take the legacy FPU to 128-bit anyway??
>I think they are still 64-bits, exactly similar to Yonah.
Legacy FP is 80 bits, not 64. And I believe that it is also
usually expanded by a few bits internally, in order to be
able to do 80-bit complex math (trig etc) more easily and
get all the nasty results right within one ULP even though
you have intermediate results.
So I think the legacy FP path tends to be on the order of
82 bits or so, not 64.
But yeah, I don't see any reason to do a 128-bit path,
other than in specific cases (ie the multiplier would
need to have 128-bit internal paths at some point, since
the mantissa in a 80-bit FP value is 64 bits).
Of course, you could probably make the case that nobody
actually cares about legacy 80-bit FP any more,
and not even implement it. I think that's what all the
x86 software emulators do (except on Itanium, which I
think has full hw support for the 80-bit extended math).
But I don't see Intel or AMD throwing out their existing
support for 80-bit math.
Or did you mean something else?
Linus
Topic | Posted By | Date |
---|---|---|
Barcelona Article Online | David Kanter | 2007/05/16 03:20 AM |
Barcelona Article Online | PiedPiper | 2007/05/16 05:12 AM |
Yes, I left out a sentence there. Fixed (NT) | David Kanter | 2007/05/16 12:07 PM |
Barcelona Article Online | anonymous | 2007/05/16 06:01 AM |
Barcelona Article Online | Anonymous | 2007/05/16 06:28 PM |
Barcelona Article Online | anonymous | 2007/05/16 07:52 PM |
Barcelona Article Online | Anonymous1 | 2007/05/16 07:08 AM |
Barcelona Article Online | Dean M | 2007/05/16 11:09 AM |
Barcelona Article Online | David Kanter | 2007/05/16 12:38 PM |
Barcelona Article Online | Dean M | 2007/05/16 02:10 PM |
Barcelona Article Online | IntelUser2000 | 2007/05/16 02:59 PM |
Barcelona Article Online | Linus Torvalds | 2007/05/16 03:24 PM |
Barcelona Article Online | David Kanter | 2007/05/16 04:57 PM |
Barcelona Article Online | Michael S | 2007/05/17 05:07 AM |
Barcelona Article Online | IntelUser2000 | 2007/05/18 08:58 PM |
8 socket servers | Doug Siebert | 2007/05/16 04:58 PM |
8 socket servers | Michael S | 2007/05/17 05:20 AM |
8 socket servers | Joe Chang | 2007/05/17 07:38 AM |
8 socket servers | Alex Jones | 2007/05/17 09:35 AM |
8 socket servers | Jose | 2007/05/23 08:23 AM |
8 socket servers | Michael S | 2007/05/23 11:37 AM |
8 socket servers | anonymous | 2007/05/26 03:49 PM |
8 socket servers | Joe Chang | 2007/05/27 01:46 PM |
8 socket servers | Doug Siebert | 2007/05/23 09:56 PM |
8 socket servers | Joe Chang | 2007/05/24 04:33 AM |
8 socket servers | Anonymous | 2007/05/24 11:18 AM |
8 socket servers | Doug Siebert | 2007/05/24 10:47 PM |
8 socket servers | Linus Torvalds | 2007/05/25 10:35 AM |
8 socket servers | Nick | 2007/05/25 02:29 AM |
Performance estimation seems odd | Hotar | 2007/05/17 01:54 AM |
Performance estimation seems odd | David Kanter | 2007/05/17 08:38 AM |
microops vs macroops on page 4 | Peter Lund | 2007/05/17 12:04 PM |
microops vs macroops on page 4 | David Kanter | 2007/05/21 04:51 PM |
microops vs macroops on page 4 | EduardoS | 2007/05/21 05:42 PM |
microops vs macroops on page 4 | dess | 2007/05/21 07:00 PM |
Barcelona Article Online | Peter Lund | 2007/05/17 12:25 PM |
macro-op vs. micro-op | dess | 2007/05/21 07:24 AM |
macro-op vs. micro-op | David Kanter | 2007/05/21 04:38 PM |
macro-op vs. micro-op | dess | 2007/05/21 06:15 PM |
macro-op vs. micro-op | David Kanter | 2007/05/22 12:11 AM |
macro-op vs. micro-op | dess | 2007/05/22 03:56 AM |
macro-op vs. micro-op | Gipsel | 2007/05/22 05:05 AM |
macro-op vs. micro-op | dess | 2007/05/22 05:52 AM |
macro-op vs. micro-op | anonymous | 2007/05/22 06:14 AM |
macro-op vs. micro-op | dess | 2007/05/22 06:44 AM |
macro-op vs. micro-op | EduardoS | 2007/05/22 02:19 PM |
macro-op vs. micro-op | dess | 2007/05/24 08:52 AM |
Stop comparing apples to oranges | EduardoS | 2007/05/22 02:30 PM |
Stop comparing apples to oranges | dess | 2007/05/22 04:09 PM |
Stop comparing apples to oranges | dess | 2007/05/22 04:30 PM |
Stop comparing apples to oranges | EduardoS | 2007/05/22 04:31 PM |
Stop comparing... apples to oranges? | dess | 2007/05/24 09:30 AM |
Stop comparing apples to oranges | anonymous | 2007/05/22 08:12 PM |
Stop comparing apples to oranges | EduardoS | 2007/05/23 02:50 PM |
macro-op vs. micro-op | anonymous | 2007/05/22 06:08 AM |
macro-op vs. micro-op | dess | 2007/05/22 06:40 AM |
macro-op vs. micro-op | anonymous | 2007/05/22 06:48 AM |
macro-op vs. micro-op | dess | 2007/05/21 08:30 PM |
macro-op vs. micro-op | anonymous | 2007/05/22 06:44 AM |
macro-op vs. micro-op | dess | 2007/05/24 09:38 AM |
macro-op vs. micro-op | Michael S | 2007/05/22 05:26 AM |