Re:Diminishing returns of static typing
by tom_mellior on Tuesday October 03, 2017 @04:02PM
(#15395646)
>> It's for architectural reasons.
> No, it's for architectural reasons.
You win, I guess?
Re:Diminishing returns of static typing
by naasking on Tuesday October 03, 2017 @09:51PM
(#15397725)
I'm not sure who you're quoting, but I never even used the word "architecture". I don't even know what that's supposed to mean.
Re:Diminishing returns of static typing
by tom_mellior on Wednesday October 04, 2017 @12:59AM
(#15398354)
You try to explain CPU architecture to me, then claim you don't know what CPU architecture is? OK, maybe you don't win, in any case I'll stop here.
Re:Diminishing returns of static typing
by naasking on Thursday October 05, 2017 @11:33AM
(#15409994)
"Architectural reasons" is nonsense. "Architecture" isn't a set of reasons justifying anything, rather it's the other way around: we design architecture for specific reasons. Your claims that we do things for "architectural reasons" don't have any clear meaning. I said the actual reasons are performance. I don't think I'm the one being unclear.
Weak and strong aren't meaningful terms. A machine ISA might have an inexpressive type system and/or an unsound type system (because it conflates addresses and integers).
> And the reason floating point registers are often separate from integer registers is not to provide this kind of "type safety", it's due to history and architecture.
No, the reason is performance. And we get performance by making statically known distinctions between datatypes, which is what the original poster asked about.
Intermingling the integer and floating point circuitry so they access the same register file would never improve performance over keeping them separate. You'd need longer wires to place them both near the same register files to minimize signal latency, an the added signal delay alone ensures lower performance.