Article View: comp.arch
Article #11504Re: condition codes
From: Donald Lindsay
Date: Sun, 12 May 1991 05:19
Date: Sun, 12 May 1991 05:19
20 lines
1503 bytes
1503 bytes
In article <12162@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) writes: >Why get rid of condition flags? Other than the condition register, they take >up little space, and also they cost essentially nothing. Looking at one or >two bits is certainly cheaper than comparing two quantities, even if they are >in registers. Overflow and carry are useful. The problem with condition flags is the hardware complexity. In a simple machine, condition flags can be supported by simple hardware. However, suppose that you then build a hot version of that simple machine, and try to have some independence between the integer unit and the FPU. This attempt will be frustrated by the condition codes, because both "independent" units must communicate to these bits in a correct order. One way out is to dump the condition codes - as several risc machines have done. The RS/6000 takes the other way out, and has several sets of condition codes. -- Don D.C.Lindsay Carnegie Mellon Robotics Institute
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<13011@pt.cs.cmu.edu>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cis.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!att!rutgers!rochester!pt.cs.cmu.edu!gandalf.cs.cmu.edu!lindsayReferences:
<12162@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cis.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!att!rutgers!rochester!pt.cs.cmu.edu!gandalf.cs.cmu.edu!lindsay From: lindsay@gandalf.cs.cmu.edu (Donald Lindsay) Newsgroups: comp.arch Subject: Re: condition codes Message-ID: <13011@pt.cs.cmu.edu> Date: 12 May 91 05:19:16 GMT References: <12162@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> Organization: Carnegie Mellon Lines: 20