Content deleted Content added
show explicit bytes of an 8-bit arch |
PaulBoddie (talk | contribs) →Concept: Added IBM 801 instruction format details. |
||
Line 15:
===Code density===
The downside to the RISC approach is that many instructions simply do not require four bytes. For instance, the [[Logical shift|Logical Shift Left]] instruction shifts the bits in a register to the left. In the 6502, which has only a single arithmetic register A, this instruction can be represented entirely by its 8-bit opcode {{code|$06}}.{{sfn|Verts|2004}} On processors with more registers, all that is needed is the opcode and register number, another 4 or 5 bits. On MIPS, for instance, the instruction needs only a 6-bit opcode and a 5-bit register number. But as is the case for most RISC designs, the instruction still takes up a full 32 bits. As these sorts of instructions are relatively common, RISC programs generally take up more memory than the same program on a variable length processor.{{sfn|Weaver|McKee|2009}}
One notable, and particularly early, exception amongst RISC designs is the [[IBM 801]] architecture which maintains five instruction formats: two utilising a 16-bit instruction length, and three utilising a 32-bit instruction length.<ref name="ibm_801_system_architecture">{{ cite book | url=http://bitsavers.org/pdf/ibm/system801/System_801_Principles_of_Operation_Jan76.pdf | title=System 801 Principles of Operation | publisher=International Business Machines | date=16 January 1976 | access-date=11 November 2024 }}</ref>{{rp|pages=10}} For instructions requiring less space, such as shift instructions employing only register operands, the shorter 16-bit instruction formats are used.<ref name="ibm_801_system_architecture"/>{{rp|pages=51–58}}
In the 1980s, when the RISC concept was first emerging, this was a common point of complaint. As the instructions took up more room, the system would have to spend more time reading instructions from memory. It was suggested these extra accesses might actually slow the program down. Extensive [[benchmarking]] eventually demonstrated RISC was faster in almost all cases, and this argument faded. However, there are cases where memory use remains a concern regardless of performance, and that is in small systems and embedded applications. Even in the early 2000s, the price of [[DRAM]] was enough that cost-sensitive devices had limited memory. It was for this market that [[Hitachi]] developed the [[SuperH]] design.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://resource.renesas.com/lib/eng/e_learnig/sh4/02/index.html |title=Effects of 16-bit instructions |website=Renesas}}</ref>
| |||