DOCSLIB.ORG

The Effects of Predicated Execution on Branch Prediction

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Effects of Predicated Execution on Branch Prediction The Effects of Predicated Execution on Branch Prediction Gary Scott Tyson Department of Computer Science University of California, Davis Davis, CA 95616 [email protected] Abstract of the problem can be eliminated if conditional branches can either be correctly predicted or removed entirely. High performance architectures have always had to This paper will focus on two techniques to achieve this deal with the performance-limiting impact of branch goal, Branch Prediction and Predication. operations. Microprocessor designs are going to have to Branch prediction eliminates much of the branch deal with this problem as well, as they move towards delay by predicting the direction the branch will take deeper pipelines and support for multiple instruction before the actual direction is known, and continuing issue. Branch prediction schemes are often used to allevi- instruction fetch along that instruction pathway. This has ate the negative impact of branch operations by allowing been an active area of research for many years, and con- the speculative execution of instructions after an tinues to be to this day [Smit81] [LeS84] [FiFr92] unresolved branch. Another technique is to eliminate [YeP93]. There are two main approaches to branch pred- branch instructions altogether. Predication can remove iction - static schemes, which predict at compile time, and forward branch instructions by translating the instructions dynamic schemes, which use hardware to try to capture following the branch into predicate form. the dynamic behavior of branches. In either case, if the This paper analyzes a variety of existing predica- branch is predicted incorrectly, there is a penalty that tion models for eliminating branch operations, and the must be paid to undo the incorrect prediction and proceed effect that this elimination has on the branch prediction down the proper path. (the misprediction penalty). schemes in existing processors, including single issue Predication, on the other hand, is a technique for architectures with simple prediction mechanisms, to the completely removing conditional branches from the newer multi-issue designs with correspondingly more instruction stream via the conditional execution (or com- sophisticated branch predictors. The effect on branch pletion) of individual instructions based on the result of a prediction accuracy, branch penalty and basic block size boolean condition. This is a much more recent area of is studied. research [CMCW91, DeHB89] although vector machines like the CRAY [Russ78] have long supported a type of Keywords: High-performance, Predication, Branch predicated execution with their vector masks. This is a Prediction, HP-RISC, Alpha, ATOM, Pentuim, PowerPC very promising area of research because, in addition to removing the branch itself from instruction stream, it pro- 1. Introduction and Background vides the additional bene®t of improving scheduling capa- All architectures that support some degree of bility. instruction level parallelism must deal with the Branch Prediction and Predication can be used performance-limiting effects of changes in control ¯ow together in a complimentary fashion to minimize perfor- (branches). This is certainly not a new problem -- pipe- mance impacts of branches. For example, the number of lined processors have been struggling with this problem cycles lost due to incorrectly predicted branches can be for decades, and with the advent of multiple-issue archi- reduced if the number of instructions that are tagged with tectures the problem has become even more critical. Most a false predicate is smaller than the branch misprediction ¡¢¡£¡£¡£¡£¡£¡£¡£¡£¡£¡£¡£¡£¡£¡£¡£¡£¡£¡£¡£¡£¡£¡£¡£¡£¡£¡£¡£¡ penalty itself. In addition, overall dynamic branch predic- This work was supported by National Science Foundation tion accuracy may improve, if the branches removed by Grants CCR-8706722 and CCR-90-11535. predication are some of the least predictable branches. ¤¥¤¥¤¥¤¥¤¥¤¥¤¥¤¥¤¥¤¥¤¥¤¥¤¥¤¥¤¥¤¥¤¥¤¥¤¥¤¥¤¥¤¥¤¥¤¥¤¥¤¥¤¥¤¥¤¥¤¥¤¥¤¥¤¥¤¥¤¥¤¥¤¥¤¥¤¥¤¥¤¥¤¥¤¥¤¥¤¥¤¥¤¥¤¥¤¥¤¥¤¥¤ This paper will examine the effect of augmenting branch prediction schemes found in a number of existing processors with the ability to do predicated execution. The focus will be on how predication affects the accuracy and branch penalty of the branch prediction schemes and the increase in basic block size. Different predication models will also be examined to determine their effective- ness in removing branches. Emphasis will be placed on whether the newer architectural designs, with their more When a branch is encountered, the BTB is searched (by accurate predictors, will show the same degree of branch address) in an attempt to locate the target address improvement from removing short forward branches. of the branch. If an entry is found corresponding to the Section 2 presents the different branch prediction tech- branch address, the branch is predicted taken from that niques we studied, which is followed by a description of address; otherwise it is predicted not taken and instruc- various predication schemes, an analysis of the effects of tion ¯ow continues sequentially. predication on branch prediction, branch penalty and Once the branch outcome has been determined, the basic block size, and a conclusion. branch history table is updated. If the resulting history table value will predict taken on the next execution of the 2. Branch Prediction Schemes branch, then the branch address is added to the BTB. If Branch prediction schemes range in accuracy (and the history table value predicts not taken, then the branch complexity) from simple static techniques exhibiting address is removed from the BTB (if it currently resides moderate accuracy (≈ 60%) to sophisticated dynamic there). prediction methods that achieve prediction accuracies of The ®nal branch prediction strategy modeled is the over 97%. In this study, seven approaches are modeled - two level adaptive strategy developed by Yeh and Patt ®ve used in existing commercially available products, and [YeP91]. This strategy requires considerably more two others included for the sake of completeness. Each hardware resources than the other methods, but provides approach has an associated branch misprediction penalty, greater branch prediction performance than any of the indicating the number of cycles lost when a branch is other methods. incorrectly predicted. This scheme features a set of branch history regis- The simplest of schemes predicts that all branches ters in addition to a branch history pattern table. When a will be taken - thus the processor will always attempt to branch instruction is executed, the lower bits of the fetch instructions from the target of the branch. branch address are used to index into the set of history The Hewlett Packard Precision RISC Architecture registers. Each history register (implemented as a shift (PA-RISC) [AADM93] uses a static prediction method register) contains information about the branch history of for calculating the direction of instruction ¯ow across those branches that map into that register. This informa- branches termed Branch Backward. In this scheme, all tion is then used to index into the branch history pattern forward branches are predicted not to be taken and all table, which contains the information necessary to deter- backward branches are predicted to be taken. This mine the actual branch prediction. scheme performs better than branch always when applica- In the model used in this study the branch history tions contain forward branches that are not taken more register ®le contains 512 13-bit entries (which limits the often than they are taken. branch history pattern table to 8192 entries) and each The Alpha processor [McLe93, Site92] supports branch history pattern table entry is a 2 bit history three different prediction methods: opcode speci®ed hints, counter. a branch backward strategy, and a one bit branch history table. While a given implementation of the Alpha archi- 3. Predicated Execution Models tecture may use any or all of these methods, in this study As mentioned in the introduction, predicated execu- only the last two were modeled. The branch backward tion refers to the conditional execution (or completion) of strategy used in the Alpha operates the same way as in the instructions based on the result of a boolean condition. HP-RISC. The one-bit branch history table approach Several different approaches to providing predicated exe- used in the Alpha features a direct mapped, 2048 entry, cution have been proposed and implemented. They fall single bit history table. In this scheme, the low order bits into two broad categories referred to as restricted and of the address of a branch instruction are used to select a unrestricted. one bit entry in the history table, which is in turn used to In the restricted model a limited number of new predict the branch direction. The entry is later updated to predicate instructions are introduced which are used to re¯ect the actual condition of the branch. explicitly delay the effect of executing a statement on The prediction approach used by the Pentium pro- program variables. This is achieved by moving the state- cessor [AlAv93] features a 256 entry Branch Target ment in question up to before the branch, modifying it to Buffer (BTB). Each BTB entry contains the target write to a free register instead of a program variable, and address of the branch and a two bit counter used to store then using one of the special predicate operations to con- previous branch activity
Load more

Recommended publications
  • MIPS® Architecture for Programmers Volume I-B: Introduction to the Micromips32™ Architecture, Revision 5.03
    MIPS® Architecture For Programmers Volume I-B: Introduction to the microMIPS32™ Architecture Document Number: MD00741 Revision 5.03 Sept. 9, 2013 Unpublished rights (if any) reserved under the copyright laws of the United States of America and other countries. This document contains information that is proprietary to MIPS Tech, LLC, a Wave Computing company (“MIPS”) and MIPS’ affiliates as applicable. Any copying, reproducing, modifying or use of this information (in whole or in part) that is not expressly permitted in writing by MIPS or MIPS’ affiliates as applicable or an authorized third party is strictly prohibited. At a minimum, this information is protected under unfair competition and copyright laws. Violations thereof may result in criminal penalties and fines. Any document provided in source format (i.e., in a modifiable form such as in FrameMaker or Microsoft Word format) is subject to use and distribution restrictions that are independent of and supplemental to any and all confidentiality restrictions. UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES MAY A DOCUMENT PROVIDED IN SOURCE FORMAT BE DISTRIBUTED TO A THIRD PARTY IN SOURCE FORMAT WITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTEN PERMISSION OF MIPS (AND MIPS’ AFFILIATES AS APPLICABLE) reserve the right to change the information contained in this document to improve function, design or otherwise. MIPS and MIPS’ affiliates do not assume any liability arising out of the application or use of this information, or of any error or omission in such information. Any warranties, whether express, statutory, implied or otherwise, including but not limited to the implied warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose, are excluded. Except as expressly provided in any written license agreement from MIPS or an authorized third party, the furnishing of this document does not give recipient any license to any intellectual property rights, including any patent rights, that cover the information in this document.
    [Show full text]
  • MIPS32™ Architecture for Programmers Volume I: Introduction to the MIPS32™ Architecture
    MIPS32™ Architecture For Programmers Volume I: Introduction to the MIPS32™ Architecture Document Number: MD00082 Revision 0.95 March 12, 2001 MIPS Technologies, Inc. 1225 Charleston Road Mountain View, CA 94043-1353 Copyright © 2001 MIPS Technologies, Inc. All rights reserved. Unpublished rights reserved under the Copyright Laws of the United States of America. This document contains information that is proprietary to MIPS Technologies, Inc. (“MIPS Technologies”). Any copying, modifyingor use of this information (in whole or in part) which is not expressly permitted in writing by MIPS Technologies or a contractually-authorized third party is strictly prohibited. At a minimum, this information is protected under unfair competition laws and the expression of the information contained herein is protected under federal copyright laws. Violations thereof may result in criminal penalties and fines. MIPS Technologies or any contractually-authorized third party reserves the right to change the information contained in this document to improve function, design or otherwise. MIPS Technologies does not assume any liability arising out of the application or use of this information. Any license under patent rights or any other intellectual property rights owned by MIPS Technologies or third parties shall be conveyed by MIPS Technologies or any contractually-authorized third party in a separate license agreement between the parties. The information contained in this document constitutes one or more of the following: commercial computer software, commercial
    [Show full text]
  • MCST~8 Assembly Language Programming Manual PRELIMINARY EDITION
    INTEL CORP. 3065 Bowers Avenue, Santa Clara, California 95051 • (408) 246-7501 MCST~8 Assembly Language Programming Manual PRELIMINARY EDITION November 1973 © Intel Corporation 1973 -- TABLE OF CONTENTS -- 8008 PROGRAMMING MANUAL Page No. 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1-1 2.0 COMPUTER ORGANIZATION 2-1 2.1 THE CENTRAL PROCESSING UNIT 2-3 2.1.1 WORKING REGISTERS 2-3 2. 1 .2 THE STACK 2-5 2.1.3 ARITHMETIC AND LOGIC UNIT 2-7 2.2 MEMORY 2-8 2.3 COMPUTER PROGRAM REPRESENTATION IN MEMORY 2-8 2.4 MEMORY ADDRESSING 2-10 2.4.1 DIRECT ADDRESSING 2-11 2 .4 .2 INDEXED ADDRESSING 2-13 2.4.3 INDIRECT ADDRESSING 2-13 2.4.4 IMMEDIATE ADDRESSING 2-14 2.4.5 SUBROUTINES AND USE OF THE STACK FOR ADDRESSING 2-15 2.5 CONDITION BITS 2-18 2.5.1 CARRY BIT 2-18 2 .5 • 2 SIGN BIT 2-19 2 .5 . 3 ZERO BIT 2-19 2 • 5 . 4 PARITY BIT 2-20 3.{) THE 8008 INSTRUCTION SET 3-1 3.1 ASSEMBLY LANG UAGE 3-1 3.1.1 HOW ASSEMBLY LANGUAGE IS USED 3-1 3.1.2 STATEMENT MNEMONICS 3-4 3 • 1. 3 LABEL FIELD 3-5 3.1.4 CODE FIELD 3-7 3 • 1 .5 OPERAND FIELD 3-7 3.1.6 COMMENT FIELD 3-15 i Page No. 3.2 DATA STATEMENTS 3-15 3.2.1 TWO'S COMPLEMENT 3-16 3.2.2 DB DEFINE BYTE(S) OF DATA 3-20 3.2.3 DW DEFINE WORD (TWO BYTES) OF DATA 3-21 3.2.4 DS DEFINE STORAGE (BYTES) 3-22 3.3 SINGLE REGISTER INSTRUCTIONS 3-23 3.3.1 INR INCREMENT REGISTER 3-24 3.3.2 DCR DECREMENT REGISTER 3-24 3.4 MOV INSTRUCTION 3-25 3.5 REGISTER OR MEMORY TO ACCUMULATOR INSTRUCTIONS 3-28 3.5.1 ADD ADD REGISTER OR MEMORY TO ACCUMULATOR 3-29 3.5.2 ADC ADD REGISTI:R OR MEMORY TO ACCUMULATOR WITH CARRY 3-31 3.5.3 SUB SUBTRACT REGISTER OR MEMORY
    [Show full text]
  • Notes on Usage of the RX Family C/C++ Compiler V.1.00 Release 01 and Corrections in the User's Manual
    R0C5RX00XSW01R-ERN100630 Notes on Usage of the RX Family C/C++ Compiler V.1.00 Release 01 and Corrections in the User's Manual There are notes on usage of the RX Family C/C++ compiler V.1.00 Release 01 and corrections to be made in the bundled user's manual (REJ10J2062-0100) as listed below. 1. Notes on Usage 1.1 Note on a Case of the C1804 Message [C/C++ Compiler] When the int_to_short option is specified and a file including a C standard header is compiled as C++ or EC++, the compiler may show the C1804(W) message. In this case, simply ignore the message because there are no problems. [NOTE] In compilation of C++ or EC++, the int_to_short option will be invalid. Data that are shared between C and C++ (EC++) program must be declared as the long or short type rather than as the int type. 1.2 Note on using MVTC or POPC instructions [Assembler] In the assembly language, the program counter (PC) cannot be specified for MVTC or POPC instructions. 1.3 Note on the delete Option for Linkage [Optimizing linkage editor] When a function symbol is removed by the delete option, its following function in the source program is not allowed to have a breakpoint at its function name on the editor in your debugging. If you would like to set a breakpoint at the function entrance, set the breakpoint via the Label window or at the prologue code of the function. 1.4 Notes of Paths Name and File Name [Optimizing linkage editor] In the specification of the optimizing linkage editor, the parentheses "(" and ")" signs for the path names and file names cannot be used because these signs are used for the option descriptions.
    [Show full text]
  • (SLB) Predictor: a Compiler Assisted Branch Prediction for Data Dependent Branches
    Store-Load-Branch (SLB) Predictor: A Compiler Assisted Branch Prediction for Data Dependent Branches M. Umar Farooq Khubaib Lizy K. John Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering The University of Texas at Austin [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] Abstract This work is based on the following observation: Hard- to-predict data-dependent branches are commonly associ- Data-dependent branches constitute single biggest ated with program data structures such as arrays, linked source of remaining branch mispredictions. Typically, lists, trees etc., and follow store-load-branch execution se- data-dependent branches are associated with program quence similar to one shown in listing 1. A set of memory data structures, and follow store-load-branch execution se- locations is written while building and updating the data quence. A set of memory locations is written at an earlier structure (line 2, listing 1). During data structure traver- point in a program. Later, these locations are read, and sal, these locations are read, and used for evaluating branch used for evaluating branch condition. Branch outcome de- condition (line 7, listing 1). pends on data values stored in data structure, which, typi- 52 50 53 cally do not have repeatable pattern. Therefore, in addition 35 Gshare to history-based dynamic predictor, we need a different kind 30 YAGS BiMode of predictor for handling such branches. TAGE 25 This paper presents Store-Load-Branch (SLB) predic- 20 tor; a compiler-assisted dynamic branch prediction scheme for data-dependent direct and indirect branches. For ev- 15 ery data-dependent branch, compiler identifies store in- 10 5 structions that modify the data structure associated with Mispredictions per 1K instructions the branch.
    [Show full text]
  • Downloads/Kornau-Tim--Diplomarbeit--Rop.Pdf [34] Sebastian Krahmer
    CFI CaRE: Hardware-supported Call and Return Enforcement for Commercial Microcontrollers Thomas Nyman Jan-Erik Ekberg Lucas Davi N. Asokan Aalto University, Finland Trustonic, Finland University of Aalto University, Finland [email protected] [email protected] Duisburg-Essen, [email protected] Trustonic, Finland Germany thomas.nyman@ lucas.davi@wiwinf. trustonic.com uni-due.de ABSTRACT CFI (Section 3.1) is a well-explored technique for resisting With the increasing scale of deployment of Internet of Things (IoT), the code-reuse attacks such as Return-Oriented Programming concerns about IoT security have become more urgent. In particular, (ROP) [47] that allow attackers in control of data memory to subvert memory corruption attacks play a predominant role as they allow the control flow of a program. CFI commonly takes the formof remote compromise of IoT devices. Control-flow integrity (CFI) is inlined enforcement, where CFI checks are inserted at points in the a promising and generic defense technique against these attacks. program code where control flow changes occur. For legacy applica- However, given the nature of IoT deployments, existing protection tions CFI checks must be introduced by instrumenting the pre-built mechanisms for traditional computing environments (including CFI) binary. Such binary instrumentation necessarily modifies the mem- need to be adapted to the IoT setting. In this paper, we describe ory layout of the code, requiring memory addresses referenced by the challenges of enabling CFI on microcontroller (MCU) based the program to be adjusted accordingly [28]. This is typically done IoT devices. We then present CaRE, the first interrupt-aware CFI through load-time dynamic binary rewriting software [14, 39].
    [Show full text]
  • PL/I for AIX: Programming Guide
    IBM PL/I for AIX Programming Guide Ve r s i o n 2.0.0 SC18-9328-00 IBM PL/I for AIX Programming Guide Ve r s i o n 2.0.0 SC18-9328-00 Note! Before using this information and the product it supports, be sure to read the general information under “Notices” on page 309. Second Edition (June 2004) This edition applies to IBM PL/I for AIX 2.0.0, 5724-H45, and to any subsequent releases until otherwise indicated in new editions or technical newsletters. Make sure you are using the correct edition for the level of the product. Order publications through your IBM representative or the IBM branch office serving your locality. Publications are not stocked at the address below. A form for readers’ comments is provided at the back of this publication. If the form has been removed, address your comments to: IBM Corporation, Department HHX/H1 555 Bailey Ave San Jose, CA, 95141-1099 United States of America When you send information to IBM, you grant IBM a nonexclusive right to use or distribute the information in any way it believes appropriate without incurring any obligation to you. ©International Business Machines Corporation 1998,2004. All rights reserved. Contents Figures . vii COMPILE . .47 COPYRIGHT . .48 CURRENCY . .48 Part 1. Introducing PL/I on your DEFAULT . .48 workstation . .1 EXIT. .54 EXTRN . .54 Chapter 1. About this book . .3 FLAG . .55 FLOATINMATH. .55 Chapter 2. How to read the syntax GONUMBER . .56 GRAPHIC . .56 diagrams . .5 IMPRECISE . .56 INCAFTER . .57 Chapter 3.
    [Show full text]
  • Jump Tables Via Function Pointer Arrays in C/C++ Jump Tables, Also Called Branch Tables, Are an Efficient Means of Handling Similar Events in Software
    Jump Tables via Function Pointer Arrays in C/C++ Jump tables, also called branch tables, are an efficient means of handling similar events in software. Here’s a look at the use of arrays of function pointers in C/C++ as jump tables. Examination of assembly language code that has been crafted by an expert will usually reveal extensive use of function “branch tables.” Branch tables (a.k.a., jump tables) are used because they offer a unique blend of compactness and execution speed, particularly on microprocessors that support indexed addressing. When one examines typical C/C++ code, however, the branch table (i.e., an array of funtion pointers) is a much rarer beast. The purpose of this article is to examine why branch tables are not used by C/C++ programmers and to make the case for their extensive use. Real world examples of their use are included. Function pointers In talking to C/C++ programmers about this topic, three reasons are usually cited for not using function pointers. They are: • They are dangerous • A good optimizing compiler will generate a jump table from a switch statement, so let the compiler do the work • They are too difficult to code and maintain Are function pointers dangerous? This school of thought comes about, because code that indexes into a table and then calls a function based on the index has the capability to end up just about anywhere. For instance, consider the following code fragment: void (*pf[])(void) = {fna, fnb, fnc, …, fnz}; void test(const INT jump_index) { /* Call the function specified by jump_index */ pf[jump_index](); } FREDERICK, MD 21702 USA • +1 301-551-5138 • WWW.RMBCONSULTING.US The above code declares pf[] to be an array of pointers to functions, each of which takes no arguments and returns void.
    [Show full text]
  • LC-2 Programmer's Reference and User Guide
    LC-2 Programmer’s Reference and User Guide University of Michigan EECS 100 Matt Postiff Copyright (C) Matt Postiff 1995-1999. All rights reserved. Written permission of the author is required for duplication of this document. Table of Contents Table of Contents . i List of Tables . iii List of Figures . v Chapter 1 Introduction to the LC-2 . 1 1.1 Notational Conventions . 3 Chapter 2 LC-2 Programmer’s Reference . 7 2.1 LC-2 Programming Model. 9 2.2 Instruction Set . 10 2.3 Summary of Instruction Formats and Semantics. 28 2.4 Addressing Modes . 31 2.5 Branching Modes. 32 2.6 The LC-2 System Calls . 33 2.7 The LC-2 Hardware Registers . 34 2.8 The LC-2 Memory Map. 35 Chapter 3 LC-2 Machine- and Assembly-Programming . 37 3.1 Introduction to Program Execution in the LC-2 . 39 3.2 The LC-2 Instruction Encoding . 40 3.3 Condition Codes in the LC-2 Processor. 41 3.3.1 Condition Field in the Instruction Encoding. 41 3.4 Keyboard Input and Console Output . 42 3.5 Programming the LC-2 in Machine Language . 43 3.5.1 Machine-Language File Formats . 43 3.6 Programming the LC-2 in Assembly Language . 46 3.6.1 Introduction. 46 3.6.2 LC-2 Assembly Language . 46 3.6.3 The Assembly Process . 49 3.6.4 Some Examples. 49 Chapter 4 LC-2 Programming Tools Guide. 51 4.1 The convert Program . 53 4.2 The assemble Program. 54 4.2.1 The Listing File.
    [Show full text]
  • Control Flow
    Control Flow Stephen A. Edwards Columbia University Fall 2012 Control Flow “Time is Nature’s way of preventing everything from happening at once.” Scott identifies seven manifestations of this: 1. Sequencing foo(); bar(); 2. Selection if (a) foo(); 3. Iteration while (i<10) foo(i); 4. Procedures foo(10,20); 5. Recursion foo(int i) { foo(i-1); } 6. Concurrency foo() bar() jj 7. Nondeterminism do a -> foo(); [] b -> bar(); Ordering Within Expressions What code does a compiler generate for a = b + c + d; Most likely something like tmp = b + c; a = tmp + d; (Assumes left-to-right evaluation of expressions.) Order of Evaluation Why would you care? Expression evaluation can have side-effects. Floating-point numbers don’t behave like numbers. GCC returned 25. Sun’s C compiler returned 20. C says expression evaluation order is implementation-dependent. Side-effects int x = 0; int foo() { x += 5; return x; } int bar() { int a = foo() + x + foo(); return a; } What does bar() return? Side-effects int x = 0; int foo() { x += 5; return x; } int bar() { int a = foo() + x + foo(); return a; } What does bar() return? GCC returned 25. Sun’s C compiler returned 20. C says expression evaluation order is implementation-dependent. Side-effects Java prescribes left-to-right evaluation. class Foo { static int x; static int foo() { x += 5; return x; } public static void main(String args[]) { int a = foo() + x + foo(); System.out.println(a); } } Always prints 20. Number Behavior Basic number axioms: a x a if and only if x 0 Additive identity Å Æ Æ (a b) c a (b c) Associative Å Å Æ Å Å a(b c) ab ac Distributive Å Æ Å Misbehaving Floating-Point Numbers 1e20 + 1e-20 = 1e20 1e-20 1e20 ¿ (1 + 9e-7) + 9e-7 1 + (9e-7 + 9e-7) 6Æ 9e-7 1, so it is discarded, however, 1.8e-6 is large enough ¿ 1.00001(1.000001 1) 1.00001 1.000001 1.00001 1 ¡ 6Æ ¢ ¡ ¢ 1.00001 1.000001 1.00001100001 requires too much intermediate ¢ Æ precision.
    [Show full text]
  • Lecture Notes Companion CPSC 213 2Nd Edition DRAFT Oct28
    Lecture Notes Companion CPSC 213 2nd Edition DRAFT Oct28 Mike Feeley University of British Columbia February 13, 2012 2 Contents 1 Introduction to the Computer Systems 7 1.1 JavaandC................................................. 8 1.2 The Compiler . 8 2 Execution of a Program 9 2.1 The Plan . 9 2.2 Introduction to a Simple CPU . 10 2.2.1 The CPU . 10 2.2.2 The Memory . 12 2.2.3 The Anatomy of a Cycle . 14 2.3 Instruction Set Architectures . 16 2.3.1 Simple Machine ISA Constraints . 16 2.3.2 Instruction Set Styles (RISC vs CISC) . 16 2.3.3 Types of Opcodes . 17 2.3.4 Addressing Modes . 18 2.3.5 Assembly Language . 18 2.3.6 The SM213 ISA . 20 2.4 Variables . 20 2.4.1 Classifying Variables . 20 2.4.2 SM213 Instructions for Accessing Variables . 21 2.4.3 Static Variables . 21 2.4.4 Dynamic Arrays . 24 2.4.5 Instance Variables . 26 2.4.6 Java References and C Pointers . 32 3 2.5 Dynamic Allocation and Deallocation . 32 2.5.1 Pointers and References . 32 2.5.2 Allocating and Deallocating Dynamic Objects . 32 2.5.3 Type Safety and Explicit Deallocation . 32 2.5.4 The Dangling Pointer Problem and Other Bugs With Using Pointers in C . 33 2.5.5 Memory Leaks . 33 2.5.6 Java Reference Objects . 34 2.5.7 Garbage Collection . 34 2.6 ALU Instructions . 34 2.6.1 SM213 Instructions for Doing Math . 34 2.7 Control Flow . 35 2.7.1 SM213 Instructions for Static Control Flow .
    [Show full text]
  • Low-Level C Programming CSEE W4840
    Low-Level C Programming CSEE W4840 Prof. Stephen A. Edwards Columbia University Spring 2009 Low-Level C Programming – p. Goals Function is correct Source code is concise, readable, maintainable Time-critical sections of program run fast enough Object code is small and efficient Basically, optimize the use of three resources: Execution time Memory Development/maintenance time Low-Level C Programming – p. Like Writing English You can say the same thing many different ways and mean the same thing. There are many different ways to say the same thing. The same thing may be said different ways. There is more than one way to say it. Many sentences are equivalent. Be succinct. Low-Level C Programming – p. Arithmetic Integer Arithmetic Fastest Floating-point arithmetic in hardware Slower Floating-point arithmetic in software Very slow +, − × slower ÷ sqrt, sin, log, etc. y Low-Level C Programming – p. Simple benchmarks for (i = 0 ; i < 10000 ; ++i) /* arithmetic operation */ On my desktop Pentium 4 with good hardware floating-point support, Operator Time Operator Time + (int) 1 + (double) 5 * (int) 5 * (double) 5 / (int) 12 / (double) 10 « (int) 2 sqrt 28 sin 48 pow 275 Low-Level C Programming – p. Simple benchmarks On my Zaurus SL 5600, a 400 MHz Intel PXA250 Xscale (ARM) processor: Operator Time + (int) 1 + (double) 140 * (int) 1 * (double) 110 / (int) 7 / (double) 220 « (int) 1 sqrt 500 sin 3300 pow 820 Low-Level C Programming – p. C Arithmetic Trivia Operations on char, short, int, and long probably run at the same speed (same ALU). Same for unsigned variants int or long slower when they exceed machine’s word size.
    [Show full text]