Re: New assembly language instructions to support OO languages?

Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> writes:


> On 2008-12-08, Torben Cgidius Mogensen <torbenm@pc-003.diku.dk> wrote:
>> "Tony" <tony@my.net> writes:
>>
>>> To me, it seems like "reducing everything to a function" may be a bit
>>> dated given that OO languages are the thing nowadays. Can anyone
>>> imagine any new potential assembly language instructions that would
>>> make implemention of OO languages easier? (Not just necessarily the
>>> function thing, but anything).
>>
>> Having a fast hash instruction might help: It would take two numbers
>> as arguments and produce a single number that is a hash of the pair.
>> It would not need to be cryptographically strong, just good enough for
>> hash tables.
>
> if that's the only criterion xor is as good as anything else.


Xor is not really good enough for hash tables.


> otoh there are some MMX op-codes that could be abused for this purpose
> and may give better results when used on strings.


Possibly. I haven't studied MMX that closely.


>> This can be used for associative arrays, dynamic method lookup for
>> clone-based inheritance, etc.
>
> associative memory may be more useful.


Indeed.


>> A good hash can take many "normal" instructions, but you can make a
>> good hash efficiently in hardware.
>
> processors with strong hashes are available (Via Eden has AES in hardware)
>
> good hashes (like CRC-32?) do lend themselves to very simple hardware
> implementation (if you can do them in serial or byte-wise)
> how fast does it need to be to be worth-while?


I was thinking about as fast as 1-3 additions.


Torben

Return to the comp.compilers page.
Search the comp.compilers archives again.