Re: Architectures with strict alignment?
- From: Peter Jeremy <peterjeremy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2007 08:46:44 +1100
On Sat, Dec 29, 2007 at 06:03:15PM +0800, Erich Dollansky wrote:
All RISC based designs need the alignment so that the CPU can fetch a CPU
word in one go. CISC based designs do not have this limitiation.
It's more that the additional logic required to split a single memory
operation (load/store) into multiple bus cycles is incompatible with
the RISC philosophy (though the AMD29K could apparently generate
dummy bus cycles to limit the number of bit transitions on any cycle
to reduce the I/O load).
Most CISC architectures either needed to support non-aligned accesses
for compatibility with previous architectures (eg 8080->8086) or
gained non-aligned access support when they were enhanced to support
wider buses (eg M68K).
I also do not know of any other CISC based design which made it to
mainstream.
You might like to read http://jbayko.sasktelwebsite.net/cpu.html
--
Peter Jeremy
Please excuse any delays as the result of my ISP's inability to implement
an MTA that is either RFC2821-compliant or matches their claimed behaviour.
Attachment:
pgp4vOdgzdI5P.pgp
Description: PGP signature
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Architectures with strict alignment?
- From: Bakul Shah
- Re: Architectures with strict alignment?
- References:
- Architectures with strict alignment?
- From: Ivan Voras
- Re: Architectures with strict alignment?
- From: Erich Dollansky
- Re: Architectures with strict alignment?
- From: Kip Macy
- Re: Architectures with strict alignment?
- From: Erich Dollansky
- Architectures with strict alignment?
- Prev by Date: Re: BSD license compatible hash algorithm?
- Next by Date: Re: Architectures with strict alignment?
- Previous by thread: Re: Architectures with strict alignment?
- Next by thread: Re: Architectures with strict alignment?
- Index(es):