Op Order Template: Fill & Download for Free

It’s actually “micro-op” fusion. The difference is subtle (or maybe not so if you’re in the CPU world) but significant. See x86 has instructions of the form:add <value at memory address A> to <value in register 0> and put the result in <register 1>.This is primarily what makes it a “CISC” architecture — it allows non-load/store instructions to directly access memory.Internally, all modern x86 processors break this long, complex instruction into Micro-operation - Wikipedia. The above most likely breaks down into the form of:load <value at memory address A> into <internal register X> (micro-op #1)add <value at internal register X> to <value at internal register Y> and put the result in <internal register Z> (micro-op #2)As part of this, <internal register Y> is mapped to <software-visible register 0> and <internal register Z> is mapped to <software-visible register 1>.BUT the internal processing hardware now has to deal with twice as many micro-operations; for a Out-of-order execution - Wikipedia processor (which all modern x86 processors are), it has to track the order between micro-op #1 and all other micro-ops the processor is working on and the order between micro-op #2 and all other micro-ops. This requires more hardware (tracking entries) to keep an account of which micro-op must be ordered ahead which other micro-ops.It turns out that software is pretty regular and there are common, predictable pairs (or sets of 3 or more) micro-ops that often appear together in a particular order (such as the above add-from-memory instruction).The instruction is still broken up and processed as 2 micro-ops, but for the purposes of ordering, they are tracked together and it’s implied that the load must come before the add — they take up 1 entry in the out-of-order tracker.There are several pre-determined templates that’s built in (or maybe programmed via firmware) into the hardware that recognizes specific sequences of micro-ops, mark them as a single fused micro-op and also mark what ordering-template they use. For example:Template 1: load-add - anytime there’s an add that follows a load and uses data from that lod, mark the pair as “template 1 fusion” and track them using one entry in the out-of-order engine.You still have the benefits, therefore, of having fast load/store hardware that only handles memory operations that processes micro-op #1 from above. You still have the benefit of having fast addition hardware that only handles mathematical operations like micro-op #2 above.But it’s implied by “template 1” that micro-op #2 (add) must follow micro-op #1 (load). All micro-ops that must be ordered after micro-op #2 automatically must be ordered after micro-op #1 as well. And all micro-ops that micro-op #1 must come after are also micro-ops that micro-op #2 must come after.Thus you get to better utilize your (limited) out-of-order trackers and are able to track more instructions-in-flight.

The OP writes:I mean every operation to a container is done with a function call. Thus when I do such tasks which push and pop a stack, for instance, in high frequency, will the who program suffer speed loss from that?If you’re going to use a library, somehow, you need to transition from user code to library code, and when you do so, you need to tell the library what to operate on… it seems like you need to put the arguments at an agreed-upon location in memory, and then execute an instruction that jumps into the library code. Congratulations—you’ve just invented the function call.Perhaps you meant that we shouldn’t use libraries at all, and should just inline the instructions that library functions such as std::stack::push and std::stack::pop are going to execute, directly into the calling code, in order to minimize overhead? In fact, if you want to do this, you absolutely should use the C++ standard library. The function and class templates in the standard library are fully defined in the headers, so when the compiler is compiling your code, it will have the opportunity to inline the function calls as an optimization. A good compiler will know when to do this. Therefore, you get the best of both worlds: the convenience and readability of calling library functions, and the speed of inlining.

A) Their helmets have low visibility.A throwaway line from Captain Rex in Star Wars Rebels says that he prefers his Clone Wars era armor than that of Imperial Stormtroopers, as the helmet’s visor is misaligned, making it hard to see.B) They miss on purpose.When needs call for it, they will use suppression tactics to coax a target to a predetermined place, such as a bugged Millennium Falcon in Ep 4. When they were taking on the rebels in the Tantive IV they didn’t miss, since they had orders to arrest the princess and kill anyone else.C) The Force protects the Jedi from their weapons.The pilot movie for Rebels shows Kanan Jarrus walking out from behind cover into oncoming fire, and dodging all the shots without missing a beat. And that is without his lightsaber. He predicted where the shots would be and was able to dodge with ease.D) Stormtroopers are inferior to Clones.Remember that the Clone Army were created from the template of esteemed Mandalorian Warrior turned Bounty Hunter Jango Fett. The Fett clones were trained for over a decade in combat skills and military training, had the musculature of one of the finest soldiers in the galaxy, and were trained to be excellent marksman.Imperial Stormtroopers consisted of mostly humans who had been recruited as a police force rather than an army. Their training didn’t concern military tactics because it was an era of peace. The warzones were instead commanded by the special forces such as Supercommandos (Imperial Mandalorians), Death Troopers (elite guards and spec-ops soldiers) and the 501st legion (Vader’s personal battalion made up of Clone Veterans and birth-born humans). The 501st was the only legion to retain clone commandos, and thanks to their superior training served as the strongest unit of troops for large scale battles such as the Battle of Hoth.