Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Author Topic: Any missing features in 68060?  (Read 7212 times)

Description:

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Karlos

  • Sockologist
  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Nov 2002
  • Posts: 16879
  • Country: gb
  • Thanked: 5 times
    • Show all replies
Re: Any missing features in 68060?
« on: May 03, 2009, 08:57:11 AM »
A few suggestions that I think might be fun

1) Expanding the register width to 64-bit. You'd need to devise a new set of opcodes to support operations on them, however.

2) Saturation arithmetic would be an interesting addition, especially for graphics manipulation.

3) Allow address registers to be used for normal integer operations. There are times when you only need a few pointers but your code needs extra data registers.

The problem with all of these is finding an efficient way to implement them that preserves backwards compatibility.
int p; // A
 

Offline Karlos

  • Sockologist
  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Nov 2002
  • Posts: 16879
  • Country: gb
  • Thanked: 5 times
    • Show all replies
Re: Any missing features in 68060?
« Reply #1 on: May 03, 2009, 09:19:15 AM »
Quote

itix wrote:
Adding new instructions to 68k is pointless when there are no tools taking advantage of it.


Step #2, write an assembler package exposing the new operations.
int p; // A
 

Offline Karlos

  • Sockologist
  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Nov 2002
  • Posts: 16879
  • Country: gb
  • Thanked: 5 times
    • Show all replies
Re: Any missing features in 68060?
« Reply #2 on: May 03, 2009, 11:03:23 AM »
@bloodline


You're talking my language, reggie!

*points at sig*
int p; // A
 

Offline Karlos

  • Sockologist
  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Nov 2002
  • Posts: 16879
  • Country: gb
  • Thanked: 5 times
    • Show all replies
Re: Any missing features in 68060?
« Reply #3 on: May 03, 2009, 11:13:50 AM »
Well, I'm enjoying the benefits of an x64 as I post. I didn't get where I am today without enjoying the benefits of an x64 whilst I post.

But, we're not one of those dreadful organisations that thinks an architecture is obsolete just because it isn't enjoying the benefits of an x64. Goodbye Reggie!
int p; // A
 

Offline Karlos

  • Sockologist
  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Nov 2002
  • Posts: 16879
  • Country: gb
  • Thanked: 5 times
    • Show all replies
Re: Any missing features in 68060?
« Reply #4 on: May 03, 2009, 11:27:28 AM »
I'd actually like an architecture that only has SIMD registers, but still allows "normal" operations on them.

To enable this, each instruction could support a "mask" where a 16-bit word describes which sub elements of the register pair in an operation are to be affected.

Consider this pseudo example (assumes 128bit wide registers):

add.b r0,r1

This would add the "bottom" byte in r0 to the equivalent byte in r1, leaving the rest of d1 unaffected.

Whereas

add.b r0,r1,#FFFF

would add perform the same operation on every byte and

add.l r0,r1,#A

would pefrorm a 32-bit add on the highest and middle words, leaving the rest unaffected.

One obvious complication would be the status flags. You'd probably want up to 16 of them in this instance. However, in every VM I've written for fun, I never bothered implementing condition code flags, relying instead on compare two operands and branch instructions.
int p; // A
 

Offline Karlos

  • Sockologist
  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Nov 2002
  • Posts: 16879
  • Country: gb
  • Thanked: 5 times
    • Show all replies
Re: Any missing features in 68060?
« Reply #5 on: May 03, 2009, 11:42:12 AM »
I haven't actually gotten into x64 coding yet. I'm still having too much fun with CUDA. Performance wise, PTX makes SIMD look hopeless.
int p; // A
 

Offline Karlos

  • Sockologist
  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Nov 2002
  • Posts: 16879
  • Country: gb
  • Thanked: 5 times
    • Show all replies
Re: Any missing features in 68060?
« Reply #6 on: May 03, 2009, 02:13:43 PM »
Quote

bloodline wrote:

...and let XCode and SDL worry about the hardware...


Eww. Bloody mac deviant. What's wrong with plain old gcc ? ;-)
int p; // A
 

Offline Karlos

  • Sockologist
  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Nov 2002
  • Posts: 16879
  • Country: gb
  • Thanked: 5 times
    • Show all replies
Re: Any missing features in 68060?
« Reply #7 on: May 03, 2009, 07:53:14 PM »
Strictly speaking, is an FPGA implementation of an architecture considered an emulation?
int p; // A