3 ms·
I don't agree that this is so farfetched. As noted in a sibling, Apple has released ISA extensions before. If the architecture is decoding to uops anyway the ad
by ericpauley 6y ago
I don't agree that this is so farfetched. As noted in a sibling, Apple has released ISA extensions before. If the architecture is decoding to uops anyway the addition of x86 helper instructions may not affect the architecture much at all (or may even be implemented in microcode). Further, the comparison between Rosetta 1 and 2 may not necessarily apply, as the switch to intel was (arguably) a more substantial perf increase over POWER.
- klelatti 6y agoI think 2. is the key point Apple will expect its developers to produce universal binaries very quickly. Once that has been done the issue has largely gone away. Plus not sure I agree that this is a smaller step up in performance when compared to POWER - certainly same order of magnitude.
- ericpauley 6y agoTrue. As sibling noted below it sounds like there's no additional instructions used here.
- olliej 6y agoARM licensing requires any vendor to approach ARM for permission to extend the ISA. ARM may well deny that request and instead make it part of the main ISA instead
- skissane 6y agoAre we sure that applies to Apple in particular? I presume the exact terms of Apple's license agreement with ARM are not public, so who knows exactly what is in it. It might have different terms from what ARM offers in the general case.
- londons_explore 6y agoApple execs had by far the upper hand while negotiating the contract than ARM execs did. The entire environment at the time was "we will do whatever apple wants". Shortsighted really considering there weren't really any other options for instruction sets for apple to choose - all this stuff was signed before RISCV was a thing, and PPC and MIPS had pretty high barriers to entry (lots of porting work, lacking SIMD type instructions, and another migration for all apple devs) and poor performance.