+++
title = "rv64 iss quick thought instruction handler"
[taxonomies]
tags = ["rust", "iss", "riscv"]
+++
This post was mainly written as future reference and to capture a quick thought
that came up while hacking on my riscv64 instruction set simulator (iss).
While writing this post, the structure of the decoding and instruction
interpreter looked something like the following.
```rust
enum Insn {
Add { rd: Register, rs1: Register, rs2: Register },
Sub { rd: Register, rs1: Register, rs2: Register },
// ..
}
fn decode(insn: u32) -> Insn {
match insn & 0x7f {
0 => {
// decode insn
Add { .. }
}
1 => {
// decode insn
Add { .. }
}
// ..
}
}
fn interp() {
// read insn from mem
match decode(insn) {
Add { .. } => // interpret add instruction
Sub { .. } => // interpret sub instruction
// ..
}
}
fn disasm(insn: &Insn) {
match insn {
Add { .. } => // format disasm for add
Sub { .. } => // format disasm for sub
// ..
}
}
```
While sitting there and loosing myself in some future enhancements that I would
like to add at some point, I thought about decode caching and getting rid of
that huge match case in the critical path of the interpreter loop.
The following came to my mind which I just wanted to capture here in this post
for some later time.
```rust
trait InstructionHandler: Sized {
type Ret;
fn add(&mut self, insn: &Instruction<Self>) -> Self::Ret;
fn sub(&mut self, insn: &Instruction<Self>) -> Self::Ret;
}
struct Instruction<H: InstructionHandler> {
dst: usize,
op1: u32,
op2: u32,
exec: fn(&mut H, &Self) -> H::Ret,
}
impl<H: InstructionHandler> Instruction<H> {
fn run(&self, ctx: &mut H) -> H::Ret {
(self.exec)(ctx, self)
}
}
#[derive(Debug, Default)]
struct Interpreter {
regs: [u32; 4],
}
impl InstructionHandler for Interpreter {
type Ret = ();
fn add(&mut self, insn: &Instruction<Self>) {
self.regs[insn.dst] = insn.op1 + insn.op2;
}
fn sub(&mut self, insn: &Instruction<Self>) {
self.regs[insn.dst] = insn.op1 - insn.op2;
}
}
struct Disassembler;
impl InstructionHandler for Disassembler {
type Ret = String;
fn add(&mut self, insn: &Instruction<Self>) -> Self::Ret {
format!("add {}, {}, {}", insn.dst, insn.op1, insn.op2)
}
fn sub(&mut self, insn: &Instruction<Self>) -> Self::Ret {
format!("sub {}, {}, {}", insn.dst, insn.op1, insn.op2)
}
}
fn decode<H: InstructionHandler>(opc: usize) -> Instruction<H> {
match opc {
0 => Instruction { dst: 1, op1: 222, op2: 42, exec: H::add },
1 => Instruction { dst: 3, op1: 110, op2: 23, exec: H::sub },
_ => todo!(),
}
}
fn main() {
let mut c = Interpreter::default();
println!("{:?}", &c);
decode(0).run(&mut c);
decode(1).run(&mut c);
println!("{}", decode(0).run(&mut Disassembler));
println!("{}", decode(1).run(&mut Disassembler));
println!("{:?}", &c);
}
```
The nice part is that the handler is directly attached to the instruction, the
bad part is that the instruction is tied to one specific handler. So as it is
sketched below, we can't just decode an instruction with the `Interpreter` and
then __'run'__ it with the `Disassembler`.
Additionally it would be interesting to compare the generated code and
benchmark the interpreter loop. But this has to wait until the iss is somewhat
more mature :^)
