|
|
Warp wrote:
> I don't think there's any confusion about that. In a typical RISC
> processor each opcode has exactly the same size, and a fixed amount of
> bits in the opcode are allocated for specified things.
I don't think that's sufficient to make it a RISC processor. That would
mean both the PDP-11 and the X-560 were RISC processors. The X-560 had
built-in instructions for COBOL data types, string manipulation (aka
block moves/compares/character set and case conversions/etc),
instructions that would do things like push a word on a stack whose
pointer was in a particular register and set the condition bits to stack
full/empty/almost full/almost empty, etc. Yet it had 7 bits of opcode,
one "indirect" bit, four bits of register ID, then either three bits of
index register and 17 bits of address, or 20 bits of absolute
(immediate) data. Very straightforward enough that I can still remember
how the opcodes were laid out after 20 years not using it. Pretty much
all the microcoded CISC machines were like that, especially those
expected to be programmed in assembler.
You'd have to talk about addressing modes, pipelines, generalness of
registers, etc. Sure, the original RISC processors had a very simple
model so they could fit more registers, but I think we've gone past that
now. What you describe might be true of *typical* RISC processors and
untrue of *typical* CISC processors, but I think everything's complex
enough now that you need to measure things on multiple dimensions in
order for it to make any sense.
This one's actually pretty interesting:
http://arstechnica.com/cpu/4q99/risc-cisc/rvc-1.html
(Which has an interesting statistic that might explain why people don't
code languages for memory efficiency any more: """To help you wrap your
mind around the situation, consider the fact that in 1977, 1MB of DRAM
cost about $5,000. By 1994, that price had dropped to under $6 (in 1977
dollars.""")
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Helpful housekeeping hints:
Check your feather pillows for holes
before putting them in the washing machine.
Post a reply to this message
|
|