home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: comp.arch
- Path: sparky!uunet!haven.umd.edu!decuac!pa.dec.com!nntpd2.cxo.dec.com!nntpd.lkg.dec.com!news.crl.dec.com!payne
- From: payne@crl.dec.com (Andrew Payne)
- Subject: Re: DEC Alpha architecture issues
- Message-ID: <1992Nov19.204729.24714@crl.dec.com>
- Sender: news@crl.dec.com (USENET News System)
- Organization: DEC Cambridge Research Lab
- References: <1992Nov18.112407.2518@doug.cae.wisc.edu> <1992Nov18.191730.1044@meiko.com> <lgnojjINN627@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM>
- Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 20:47:29 GMT
- Lines: 29
-
- In article <lgnojjINN627@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> tremblay@flayout.Eng.Sun.COM (Marc Tremblay) writes:
-
- [ ... deleted ...]
-
- >> Any conditional branch over
- >> a short sequence of instructions was optimised into a short
- >> sequence of conditionally-executed instructions, which reduced
- >> the code size and saved flushing the pipeline (there was no smart
- >> branch prediction or delayed branches).
- >
- >The last sentence is key here. If branches can be predicted with decent
- >accuracy then it is hard to obtain benefits from conditional moves
- >over using conditional branches.
-
- Do you have any data to back up this claim?
-
- Don't forget that conditional move sequences can be shorter than the
- corresponding branch sequence. In other words, the two instruction
- sequence branch/op can sometimes be replaced with a single conditional move
- instruction.
-
- Second, I believe the second order effect of providing larger basic blocks
- is the conditional move's greatest benefit. Larger basic blocks offer
- more scheduling opportunities. I don't have any data (yet), but I've
- certainly seen it happen.
-
- --
- Andrew C. Payne
- DEC Cambridge Research Lab
-