News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Intel x86 documentation has more pages than the 6502 has transistors. Parent comment

Re:Intel x86 documentation has more pages than the 6502 has ... by h4nkoslo on Wednesday December 07, 2016 @06:04PM (#13127053)
Most of that cruft consumes minimal die area and results in absolutely minimal slowdown compared to an "optimized" minimal architecture. Fun exercise: do a histogram of instructions in some large program's binary. Not a ton of weirdness in practice.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Intel x86 documentation has more pages than the 6502 has ... by pcwalton on Wednesday December 07, 2016 @06:58PM (#13127345)
I'm not disputing that. I'm talking about complexity of the programming model (number of pages in the manual), not performance.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Intel x86 documentation has more pages than the 6502 has ... by flamedoge on Wednesday December 07, 2016 @11:38PM (#13128435)
What was the main reason to add REX prefix for 64bit? Why not create longer register bits to hold 16 registers? Was it for easier binary to binary transformation?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Intel x86 documentation has more pages than the 6502 has ... by pcwalton on Thursday December 08, 2016 @12:33AM (#13128622)
Because AMD was deathly afraid of AMD64 going the way of Itanium. So they went out of their way to make their architecture as similar to 32-bit x86 as possible, right down to reusing the encoding.

They also probably figured that they could reuse decoding logic.

[ Parent | on HN ]