Date:	Mon, 5 Jul 1999 18:04:07 +0200
To:	pgcc AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	Re: K7 potentials
Message-ID:	<19990705180407.D206@cerebro.laendle>
Mail-Followup-To:	pgcc AT delorie DOT com
References:	<3 DOT 0 DOT 32 DOT 19990520004516 DOT 00aa4930 AT pop DOT xs4all DOT nl> <000401bec489$71489b60$41d16482 AT ellemtel DOT se>
Mime-Version:	1.0
In-Reply-To:	<000401bec489$71489b60$41d16482@ellemtel.se>; from David Jonsson on Fri, Jul 02, 1999 at 01:50:20PM +0100
X-Operating-System:	Linux version 2.2.10 (root AT cerebro) (gcc driver version egcs-2.91.66 19990314 (egcs-1.1.2 release) executing gcc version 2.7.2.3)
From:	Marc Lehmann <pcg AT goof DOT com>
Reply-To:	pgcc AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	pgcc AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

On Fri, Jul 02, 1999 at 01:50:20PM +0100, David Jonsson wrote:
> > >    Will the K7 be less "register starved" than the rest of the x86
> > >archictecture, or was this simply not possible while maintaining x86
> > >compatibility????
> > >    If it will have more registers, how much difference will this make
> 
> The only way to increase register amounts is to introduce new CPU states just like they have with PIII.

Not really. Thats a clean way but doesn't help existing software. There
are methods to increase the number of registers (e.g. register
renaming). These methods might even be more efficient in some cases since
they save on the number of bits necessary to encode a register.

--  
      -----==-                                             |
      ----==-- _                                           |
      ---==---(_)__  __ ____  __       Marc Lehmann      +--
      --==---/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ /       pcg AT goof DOT com      |e|
      -=====/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\       XX11-RIPE         --+
    The choice of a GNU generation                       |
                                                         |

- Raw text -