Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: BGB-Alt <bohannonindustriesllc@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: Concertlina II: Full Circle
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2024 16:39:23 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 76
Message-ID: <v4suqd$1h9f5$1@dont-email.me>
References: <mas07jhu9i876gsov2gh8tap17kem5n21p@4ax.com>
 <132536f47d1b160ad3ad0340fc479c1d@www.novabbs.org>
 <v4c17j5eo503i93fb7imjpom5jqs3oivtv@4ax.com>
 <50c85586e1aec0eef53e83cef7cb1d5d@www.novabbs.org>
 <4mb37jdb25571s1q1pjlc3ludaaks7tukr@4ax.com>
 <d773110c12357914b59c472af8147032@www.novabbs.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2024 23:39:25 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="29bf8eb7202ecd9c9660680d8d0063a5";
	logging-data="1615333"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19oJVc/FaNFSFW4o6dKac304lMQz9ZiQ00="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:Bw8OX9Y27bUA7MLvUVJiaPCCByY=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <d773110c12357914b59c472af8147032@www.novabbs.org>
Bytes: 3700

On 6/18/2024 11:52 AM, MitchAlsup1 wrote:
> John Savard wrote:
> 
>> On Mon, 17 Jun 2024 23:17:27 +0000, mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1)
>> wrote:
> 
>>> No, it is not a memref--it is a return ! using the register from the 
>>> VEC  instruction.
> 
>> As should not surprise you, I was referring to the end-of-loop
>> instruction in my current Concertina II, not the one in your MY 66000.
> 
> It may surprise you to know that I knew and know that you are talking 
> about Concer-tina-tanic.
> 
> I was merely trying to show you another way to get back to the top of a 
> loop--one that takes way fewer bits to encode.
> 
>> I try to avoid stacks, and reserving extra registers, as much as I
>> can.
> 
> My LOOP has no stack.
> 

My random thought for a loop instruction:
   LOOP Rn, Disp
Which behaves like, say:
   if((Rn--)>=0)
     goto Label;

Granted, wouldn't work for most typical "for()" loops (which would need 
a count-up value).



Otherwise, had recently been experimenting with a type of neural net 
that seems promising:
   Inputs vectors have 1 or 2 bit elements;
   Weights are 3 bits;
   The accumulator and bias are 8 bits.

Implemented as a 3R, 3R1W instruction; where the instruction shifts the 
destination left by 1 or 2 bits and adds the output into the LSB. The 
instruction would effectively handle 16 inputs at a time (as 16 or 32 
bits), with a 64-bit weights and bias vector.

Or, say (for 1-bit outputs):
   Rn=(Rn<<1) | ((w0*v0+w1*v1+...+w15*v15+bias)>=0);



The 2*3 bit multipliers are relatively cheap to implement in an FPGA.

In some small scale glyph classifier tests (as a mock-up for the logic 
of the instruction), it worked fairly well, easily able to achieve 100% 
accuracy within the scope of the test (and needs significantly fewer 
instructions to evaluate than a neural net implemented via Binary16 SIMD).

Next step might be to try to scale it up to deal with the "hand written 
digit" tests.

And, also plays nicer with normal binary values (main awkward step is 
mostly shuffling the bits around on the input side). In this case, 
mostly pulled off by getting creative with the use of Morton shuffles.

Also allows for a comparably fast plain software implementation as well.


Currently, training algo was based around using a genetic algorithm 
(can't backprop this thing).

....


>> John Savard