Different Implementations of VLIW .
|
Prev: The Mark Thorson FAQ: Read all about this LIAR, BULLY, THUG, CYBERSTALKER and HARASSER
Next: The Mark Robert Thorson FAQ: Read all about this LIAR, BULLY, THUG, CYBERSTALKER and HARASSER
From: Greg Lindahl on 9 Apr 2008 01:06 In article <810bb078-2719-48ae-b47a-6510fa72a9bb(a)u12g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Ripunjay Tripathi <ripunjay.tripathi(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Do you think, that I am > giving any exams and asking you guys for answers of the question > paper ??? It could be. But Terje screwed up, he's supposed to give you a funny yet fake answer. Seriously, have you looked at VLIW instruction encoding? Did you try googling something like "vliw implementation dependent"? The answer is on the first page... -- greg
From: Quadibloc on 9 Apr 2008 14:28 On Apr 8, 12:45 pm, Ripunjay Tripathi <ripunjay.tripa...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Different Implementations of the same VLIW architecture may not be > binary-compatible with each other. > > I am looking for explaination on the above line. I guess they mean something different by "the same architecture" than people usually do when talking about computers. So, to know what that line meant, one would have to know the context - in the book where you read that sentence, what meaning did they give to an architecture? Was it a specific kind of machine, like "an IBM 360" or "a 386- compatible microprocessor", or was it more general, for example, "a parallel machine", "NUMA", "decoupled microarchitecture", and so on. Different implementations of the Von Neumann "architecture" certainly exist that are not binary-compatible. So I can't give you an answer, since I'm not looking at the book you saw that line in. John Savard
From: Thomas Lindgren on 9 Apr 2008 16:48 lindahl(a)pbm.com (Greg Lindahl) writes: > In article <810bb078-2719-48ae-b47a-6510fa72a9bb(a)u12g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, > Ripunjay Tripathi <ripunjay.tripathi(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> Do you think, that I am >> giving any exams and asking you guys for answers of the question >> paper ??? > > It could be. But Terje screwed up, he's supposed to give you a funny > yet fake answer. > > Seriously, have you looked at VLIW instruction encoding? Did you > try googling something like "vliw implementation dependent"? The > answer is on the first page... I've always thought lecturers should ask questions that are answered only on the second page of the google results, so that students learn the vital skills necessary in today's fast paced work environment. Here's something for Ripunjay to ponder for his non-exam question. VLIW. VL ... IW. Hmmm. Best, Thomas -- Thomas Lindgren
From: Wilco Dijkstra on 9 Apr 2008 16:52 "Ripunjay Tripathi" <ripunjay.tripathi(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:810bb078-2719-48ae-b47a-6510fa72a9bb(a)u12g2000prd.googlegroups.com... On Apr 9, 12:21 am, Terje Mathisen <terje.mathi...(a)hda.hydro.com> wrote: > Ripunjay Tripathi wrote: > > Different Implementations of the same VLIW architecture may not be > > binary-compatible with each other. > > > I am looking for explaination on the above line. Read this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VLIW for a basic explanation. Wilco
From: Nick Maclaren on 9 Apr 2008 17:17
In article <90aLj.47758$kN5.39126(a)newsfe1-gui.ntli.net>, "Wilco Dijkstra" <Wilco_dot_Dijkstra(a)ntlworld.com> writes: |> "Ripunjay Tripathi" <ripunjay.tripathi(a)gmail.com> wrote in message |> news:810bb078-2719-48ae-b47a-6510fa72a9bb(a)u12g2000prd.googlegroups.com... |> On Apr 9, 12:21 am, Terje Mathisen <terje.mathi...(a)hda.hydro.com> |> wrote: |> > Ripunjay Tripathi wrote: |> > > Different Implementations of the same VLIW architecture may not be |> > > binary-compatible with each other. |> > |> > > I am looking for explaination on the above line. |> |> Read this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VLIW for a basic explanation. Of which the first sentence is so misleading as to be effectively false. I can't be bothered to read further. Regards, Nick Maclaren. |