We're out of tree codes; now what?

[Paul Brook]

On Thursday 22 March 2007 23:24, Richard Kenner wrote:
> > 1. We can go to 9-bit codes.  They're slower, independent of checking.
> > Maybe we can make bitfields go faster, and get some of that back.
>
> I think it worth understanding why this is.  One or even two instructions
> should be lost in the noise on a modern machine when they are always
> accompanied by a load.

If nothing else you've got bigger code (increased icache pressure).

Paul