From 29b388d7837800cfa0a8496f590f461e227d0755 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: lkcl Date: Sun, 9 Oct 2022 20:49:32 +0100 Subject: [PATCH] --- openpower/sv/rfc/ls002/discussion.mdwn | 40 +++++++++++++++++++++++++- 1 file changed, 39 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/openpower/sv/rfc/ls002/discussion.mdwn b/openpower/sv/rfc/ls002/discussion.mdwn index e73943ca4..247fdf7f4 100644 --- a/openpower/sv/rfc/ls002/discussion.mdwn +++ b/openpower/sv/rfc/ls002/discussion.mdwn @@ -13,11 +13,17 @@ will need to be defined in Section 4.3.1 (Data Format). ** +BF16 seems to be an equally commonly used term for bfloat16, yes. + ** 2. For fishmv, what happens if the value supplied in the FPR is not representable in single format? ** +exactly the same thing as if `fld` were used to load an "unrepresentable" +value: nothing. if `fld` raised flags or exceptions then so would (should) +`fmvis`. + ** 3. The first clause of the verbal description of fishmv seems to assume that the contents of the specified register were produced by fmvis. @@ -25,6 +31,10 @@ be generalized. If no, the wording should be explicit about this use. ** +given that the bits are spread out in `DOUBLE()` format it seems unlikely. +if the bits were placed contiguously (sequentially) then it would indeed +be a different matter. + ** 4. The instruction names and mnemonics should be more consistent with the architecture spec. In particular, the architecture spec tends to use @@ -50,7 +60,13 @@ which don't access storage, like instructions that do access storage. ** -** +the fact that they bypass D-Cache and correspondingly raise no flags or +exceptions is the connection to `ld`. despite that i like (a) as well +although for purely non-technical reasons, more "memorable", i do love +the two mnemonics `flis fishmv` :) + +we picked "s" on the end of `fmvis` (`flis`) because it is "shifted" +(like `oris`) Other: @@ -61,11 +77,15 @@ Other: which in V. 3.1B are E, F, G, and H. ** +ackniwledged. will edit + ** 2. Additional affected sections are 1.6.1.6 (additional line for DX-form), 1.6.2 (additional use for d0,d1,d2), and Appendix D (Opcode Maps). ** +ditto + ** 3. Does the last line of the Summary apply to both instructions or just to fishmv? I can see why you would want a prefixed version of fmvis, which @@ -73,11 +93,29 @@ Other: for fishmv. Why would you want a prefixed version of fishmv? ** +the analysis counting instructions and D-Cache Loads actually shows +that whilst the initial idea for `pfmvis` would be to fill in the +remaining mantissa and high exponent bits to complete a full FP64, +the cost of doing so is: + +* 1x32 flis +* 1x32 fishmv +* 1x64 pfishmv + +which is QTY 8 bytes which is actually *more* than just `fld`, +which is only QTY 6 bytes. the only technical reason therefore +to avoid D-Cache entirely, just like the 5-instruction sequence +that writes a 64-bit GPR only from immediates +(li, oris, rldicl, li, oris) + ** 4. The Motivation says "Even clearing an FPR to zero presently requires Load". What about fsub FRT,FRA,FRA? ** +didn't know about it! although technically that reads registers +(unless micro-code-redirected to an internal zeroing operation) + ** 5. "FRS" for both instructions should be changed to "FRT". ("FRS" normally specifies a source register; see Section 1.6.2. I understand that for -- 2.30.2