r3wp [groups: 83 posts: 189283]
  • Home
  • Script library
  • AltME Archive
  • Mailing list
  • Articles Index
  • Site search
 

World: r3wp

[rebcode] Rebcode discussion

BrianH
23-Feb-2007
[1989]
At the very least you should have seperate macros for 16-bit reads 
from and writes to memory, rather than a combination of 8-bit ops.
Steeve
23-Feb-2007
[1990x3]
but i'm afraid that synchronization of 16bits registers with the 
8bits (transfer of values) cause an overhead
what u gain in one side, u lost it in the other side
synchronisation needs more operations
BrianH
23-Feb-2007
[1993]
How does that overhead compare to that of doing it the straight-forward 
way? Remember that every loop of the interpreter is overhead.
Steeve
23-Feb-2007
[1994x11]
moreover , i'm not that writing/reading  a word in memory is more 
faster than to write/read 1 byte 2 times
*i'm not sure
i explain
because instructions in rebcode are different
i have to test
to write a word, u need to use change
and you need to build a binary data
for example to write 01 and 02 , you need to build the serie #{0102}
u see what i mean ?
u can not just write a 16 bit value like that
i could handle 16 bit registers directly in binary series
BrianH
23-Feb-2007
[2005]
Yeah, that is likely slower. You are likely to have to do some bytewise 
reads and writes internally. You would be faster if you had seperate 
read/write macros for the 16-bit load/store instructions.
Steeve
23-Feb-2007
[2006x3]
hu ?
what are you saying ?
i said that the faster way is to write 2 times 8bit instead of writing 
16 bit in one time
BrianH
23-Feb-2007
[2009]
I was agreeing.
Steeve
23-Feb-2007
[2010x3]
so there is no optimization to have different macro for access/writing 
16bit or 8bits registers
ah ok
'scuse me
BrianH
23-Feb-2007
[2013]
I wonder if there would be a fast way to cache the 16-bit values 
in _HL, _BC and such, and writing them quickly.
Steeve
23-Feb-2007
[2014x2]
that could be faster if 16 bits register was handled internally as 
binary series
but that will be a problem to perform math operation on them
BrianH
23-Feb-2007
[2016]
It occurs to me that overflow on these inserts isn't handled the 
way you think.
Steeve
23-Feb-2007
[2017x2]
?
explain
BrianH
23-Feb-2007
[2019]
If you poke a value over 255 into a string/binary, the upper bytes 
may be ignored rather that triggering an overflow error. Test that.
Steeve
23-Feb-2007
[2020]
ok
BrianH
23-Feb-2007
[2021]
It might save on some AND x 255 statements.
Steeve
23-Feb-2007
[2022]
could be a usefull trick if it works
BrianH
23-Feb-2007
[2023]
It doesn't work in REBOL code, but it might in rebcode.
Steeve
23-Feb-2007
[2024x4]
you're right
the upper byte of 16bit value is not kept
hum
so i could remove some and var 255 from my code
BrianH
23-Feb-2007
[2028]
That provides a way to optimize the 16-bit load/store ops, particularly 
if there are 16-bit registers.
Steeve
23-Feb-2007
[2029]
hmm...
BrianH
23-Feb-2007
[2030]
You could invalidate the affected 16-bit register if you use an 8-bit 
op, or perhaps combine 2 8-bit load/stores that would add up to a 
16-bit load/store into their 16-bit operation.
Steeve
23-Feb-2007
[2031]
perhaps...
BrianH
23-Feb-2007
[2032x2]
This would be so much easier without self-modifying code - then we 
could just compile the code and be done with it.
BTW, don't forget the ROTL and ROTR opcodes. They may help with 16-bit 
combination registers.
Steeve
23-Feb-2007
[2034x5]
hum, i think that write/read the 16bits register into/from memory 
need more instructions if i follow you
because we perform 2 read/write ,even for 16bits registers, right 
?
currently to write _bc register in memory  , i write:
pokez mem adr _c 
add.i adr 1 
pokez mem adr _b
if _bc is handle as a 16 bit value, i need to do:
pokez mem adr _bc
add.i adr 1
rotr _bc 8
pokez mem adr _bc
rotl _bc 8
right ?