|x86 global floating point register allocation email@example.com (Sverker Nilsson) (2002-08-24)|
|Re: x86 global floating point register allocation firstname.lastname@example.org (jacob navia) (2002-09-03)|
|Re: x86 global floating point register allocation email@example.com (John Dallman) (2002-09-03)|
|Re: x86 global floating point register allocation firstname.lastname@example.org (Fermin Reig) (2002-09-03)|
|Re: x86 global floating point register allocation email@example.com (Tzvetan Mikov) (2002-09-08)|
|From:||"John Dallman" <firstname.lastname@example.org>|
|Date:||3 Sep 2002 00:10:43 -0400|
|Posted-Date:||03 Sep 2002 00:10:43 EDT|
email@example.com (Sverker Nilsson) wrote:
> The special problem with the x86 floating point register stack is,
> well, that it is like a stack (8 entries, with a wrap around stack
> pointer) and not a general register file. Operations generally require
> one operand to be the top of the stack. If there is another operand,
> commonly it can be anywhere in the stack including the top, and the
> destination can be freely chosen to be the operand on the stack or the
> other one.
Yes. The initial idea for that stack seems to have been that it was
easy to use in a primitive expression evaluator, and would be empty at
the end of each C language statement or equivalent. This had an
implicit assumption that memory was nearly as fast as registers, which
was true on the Intel x86 chips of the late seventies when this
architecture was designed.
> (**) There is a concept of 'undefined' register tags, which
> raises exceptions when operated on. I was a bit surprised when
> discovering that even the exchange operation, when one operand
> is defined and the other undefined, raises an exception. This
> further limits how the register stack can be used.
This is fairly consistent with that idea of a primitive expression
evaluator; undefined values are one that have never been set, and the
architecture tries to be easy to use for the assembler language
programmer who doesn't know much about floating point or high-level
> That would be no problem if no registers were live out from the
> basic block.
That is exactly how the dominant commercial compiler for the
architecture, Microsoft Visual C++ works. The FP stack is usually
clear after each statement; it is always clear at the end of a basic
block. Intel's C/C++ compiler for Windows and Linux works in much the
same way, if it is using the x87 registers.
> If there are any such registers live, they should have to be at
> agreed-upon positions in the register stack.
True, although it's an interesting question if this will actually
improve overall throughput. Naturally, this is likely to depend on the
code that you use it on. You really do want to make sure that the FP
stack is clear at the end of each function, though! I have had to
debug compiler bugs where an entry was accidently being left behind on
the FP stack, and it is no fun at all.
This is an interesting exercise, but developments in hardware are
gradually making it obsolete. The SSE2 floating-point registers of the
Pentium 4 are more useful than the x87 ones, because they don't have
the form of a stack. AMD will be supporting these registers in their
x86-64 chips, and they're usable - and effective - in 32-bit mode.
John Dallman firstname.lastname@example.org
"C++ - the FORTRAN of the early 21st century."
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.