Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 20th Aug 2007 19:20 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 264648
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: ?? instruction set ??
by Kroc on Mon 20th Aug 2007 21:15
in reply to "RE[3]: ?? instruction set ??"
RE[5]: ?? instruction set ??
by rayiner on Mon 20th Aug 2007 21:40
in reply to "RE[3]: ?? instruction set ??"
Oh, ARM is fine. It's PPC that doesn't belong. I just don't like the basic design (too many weird instructions, no separate 32-bit and 64-bit operations, etc).
MIPS is my favorite, but x86-64 comes in a close second. It's so much better than people give it credit for. It's actually quite orthogonal in its addressing and operand modes. You get 8-bit, 32-bit, and 64-bit registers, along with 8-bit, 32-bit, and 64-bit operations. You get 8-bit and 32-bit immediates and displacements, instead of the oddly-sized immediates and displacements you usually get in RISC. Instructions that write to fixed registers and two-operand instructions suck a bit, but you can deal with both quite easily in the register allocator.
RE[6]: ?? instruction set ??
by anevilyak on Mon 20th Aug 2007 21:50
in reply to "RE[5]: ?? instruction set ??"






Member since:
2005-07-06
The Core 2 is actually less RISC-y internally than the P4. The P4 is internally a pure u-op design. The Core 2 caries fused u-ops (eg: mem-op instructions) through much of the frontend of the core.
As for PPC, ARM, and MIPS, one of those three does not belong. MIPS is a great instruction set. PowerPC is poo.