Re: non load/store architecture?
- From: Andrew Smallshaw <andrews@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 11:33:05 +0000 (UTC)
On 2006-12-12, drizzle <drizzle76@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi
What are architectures that are not load/store called ? To
clairfy, architectures that have instructions other than load/store
than can access the memory. I am wondering what is the motivation for
such instruction sets ? Are there any existing examples of such
processors.
The decision for a load/store architechure isn't one that can be
taken in isolation: it implies a number of general purpose registers
and a two or three address architechure. If you go for an accumulator
approach which was fashionable twenty or thirty years ago it simply
isn't possible. The x86 architechure in particular was first
defined about this time.
Another thing is the way you are looking at this. The question to
ask is why _go_ for a load/store architechure, not why not. I'm
not arguing for a moment that the load/store architechure is without
merit, it's just not obvious for the inexperienced. Having arithmetic
instructions that can access memory simplifies register assignment
for the programmer (or compiler) and if a value is only needed once
in a certain area of code, then all other things being equal it
has much to commend it. IOW, it's other factors that influence the
decision to go load/store and not vice versa.
--
Andrew Smallshaw
andrews@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: non load/store architecture?
- From: Brandon J. Van Every
- Re: non load/store architecture?
- References:
- non load/store architecture?
- From: drizzle
- non load/store architecture?
- Prev by Date: Re: Shared Memory for Application/Communication decoupling
- Next by Date: Re: Low Cost JTAG Boundary Scan
- Previous by thread: Re: non load/store architecture?
- Next by thread: Re: non load/store architecture?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
