• The_Decryptor@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    13 hours ago

    one of problems with CISC is that it has variable length instructions

    RISC systems also have variable length instructions, they’re just a bit stricter with the implementation that alleviates a lot of the issues (ARM instructions are always either 16-bits or 32-bits, while RISC-V is always a multiple of 16-bits and self-describing, similar to UTF-8)

    Edit: Oh, and ARM further restricts instruction length based on a CPU flag, so you can’t mix and match at an instruction level. It’s always one or the other, or it’s invalid.

    • Mihies@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      12 hours ago

      I was thinking about Apple’s M CPUs that have fixed length and they benefit out of it. It was explained on Anandtech years ago, here is a brief paragraph on the topic. Sadly Anandtech article(s) isn’t available anymore.

      Since this type of chip has a fixed instruction length, it becomes simple to load a large number of instructions and explore opportunities to execute operations in parallel. This is what’s called out-of-order execution, as explained by Anandtech in a highly technical analysis of the M1. Since complex CISC instructions can access memory before completing an operation, executing instructions in parallel becomes more difficult in contrast to the simpler RISC instructions.

      • The_Decryptor@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        10 hours ago

        Ahh, yep it turns out ARM actually removed Thumb support with their 64-bit transition, so their instruction length is fixed now, and Thumb never made it into the M* SoCs.