Date: Fri, 21 May 1999 15:10:41 +0200 To: pgcc AT delorie DOT com Subject: Re: K7 potentials Message-ID: <19990521151041.I2804@cerebro.laendle> Mail-Followup-To: pgcc AT delorie DOT com References: <374331C4 DOT CA20644C AT lycosmail DOT com> <374515C1 DOT A9DDD353 AT informatik DOT hu-berlin DOT de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <374515C1.A9DDD353@informatik.hu-berlin.de>; from Jens-Uwe Rumstich on Fri, May 21, 1999 at 08:13:53AM +0000 X-Operating-System: Linux version 2.2.9 (root AT cerebro) (gcc driver version pgcc-2.91.66 19990314 (egcs-1.1.2 release) executing gcc version 2.7.2.3) From: Marc Lehmann Reply-To: pgcc AT delorie DOT com X-Mailing-List: pgcc AT delorie DOT com X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com Precedence: bulk On Fri, May 21, 1999 at 08:13:53AM +0000, Jens-Uwe Rumstich wrote: > Hi! > > > I was wondering if there is any speculation, q's, etc about what the K7 > > may be capable of. > > > > For example: > > Will the K7 be less "register starved" than the rest of the x86 > > archictecture, or was this simply not possible while maintaining x86 > > compatibility???? > > It would break the x86-compatibility. The x86 only has 3 bit for the > registers, so you can´t have more than 8 registers without heavy > changes in the instruction set :-( No, it wouldn't. The ppro has much more than 8 registers through register renaming. Under this light having only three bits for the register might even improve performance due to better packed instructions. (No kidding, I expect compressed assembly in the next years, x86 already comes close!) > the start of the second fab in Dresden. Oh, thats great! -- -----==- | ----==-- _ | ---==---(_)__ __ ____ __ Marc Lehmann +-- --==---/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ / pcg AT goof DOT com |e| -=====/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\ XX11-RIPE --+ The choice of a GNU generation | |