On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 10:10 AM, Troy Benjegerdes <[email protected]> wrote:
> If registers are precious, why not add more? .. what is the relative cost > (in terms of latency, silicon area, and energy) to double the register set > size? > For CPUs, 32 was found to be optimal by some paper published back in the early 90's, I think. 16 was a second best, while 64 had diminishing returns. I'm not sure how this applies to GPUs, however. One problem with doubling the RF size is that you slow it down. > > So what if we have 8 'bitbucket/constant' registers of these most used > constants, and then instead of hardcoding the constants, make them be > something the application can load. > This would be a good alternative to immediates. Somes CPU architectures don't/didn't have immediates. > > As for the dependency issue, I think the point of the bitbucket register(s) > was that they have none, and we throw away all writes going to those > registers. > It's a good alternative to the 'wr' bit in the ISA I posted. -- Timothy Normand Miller, PhD Assistant Professor of Computer Science, Binghamton University http://www.cs.binghamton.edu/~millerti/ Open Graphics Project
_______________________________________________ Open-graphics mailing list [email protected] http://lists.duskglow.com/mailman/listinfo/open-graphics List service provided by Duskglow Consulting, LLC (www.duskglow.com)
