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: Joe Pfeiffer on 9 Apr 2008 19:03 nmm1(a)cus.cam.ac.uk (Nick Maclaren) writes: > In article <90aLj.47758$kN5.39126(a)newsfe1-gui.ntli.net>, > "Wilco Dijkstra" <Wilco_dot_Dijkstra(a)ntlworld.com> writes: > |> "Ripunjay Tripathi" <ripunjay.tripathi(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > |> news:810bb078-2719-48ae-b47a-6510fa72a9bb(a)u12g2000prd.googlegroups.com... > |> On Apr 9, 12:21 am, Terje Mathisen <terje.mathi...(a)hda.hydro.com> > |> wrote: > |> > Ripunjay Tripathi wrote: > |> > > Different Implementations of the same VLIW architecture may not be > |> > > binary-compatible with each other. > |> > > |> > > I am looking for explaination on the above line. > |> > |> Read this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VLIW for a basic explanation. > > Of which the first sentence is so misleading as to be effectively > false. I can't be bothered to read further. Only when taken completely out of context.
From: Erik Trulsson on 9 Apr 2008 19:15 Ripunjay Tripathi <ripunjay.tripathi(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Different Implementations of the same VLIW architecture may not be > binary-compatible with each other. > > I am looking for explaination on the above line. > There is nothing special about VLIW in that regard (depending slightly on exactly which definition of 'architecture' and 'binary-compatible' you are using.) (Exercise 1: Define exectly what you mean by 'architecture') (Exercise 2: Write a small program which will behave differently depending on if it is running on an Intel 8086 or an 8088. Do these processors belong to the same architecture according to your definition? ) -- <Insert your favourite quote here.> Erik Trulsson ertr1013(a)student.uu.se
From: Nick Maclaren on 10 Apr 2008 03:39 In article <1b8wzmiqb2.fsf(a)babs.wb.pfeifferfamily.net>, Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer(a)cs.nmsu.edu> writes: |> nmm1(a)cus.cam.ac.uk (Nick Maclaren) writes: |> > In article <90aLj.47758$kN5.39126(a)newsfe1-gui.ntli.net>, |> > "Wilco Dijkstra" <Wilco_dot_Dijkstra(a)ntlworld.com> writes: |> > |> > |> 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. |> |> Only when taken completely out of context. Not at all, but you probably haven't been in this game long enough to realise why I said that. To start an article by putting the cart before the horse and rewriting history isn't good, even in Wikipedia, though it is regrettably common. Regards, Nick Maclaren.
From: Ripunjay Tripathi on 10 Apr 2008 06:00 On Apr 10, 4:15 am, Erik Trulsson <ertr1...(a)student.uu.se> wrote: > 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. > > There is nothing special about VLIW in that regard (depending slightly on > exactly which definition of 'architecture' and 'binary-compatible' you > are using.) > > (Exercise 1: Define exectly what you mean by 'architecture') > > (Exercise 2: Write a small program which will behave differently depending > on if it is running on an Intel 8086 or an 8088. Do these processors belong to > the same architecture according to your definition? ) > > -- > <Insert your favourite quote here.> > Erik Trulsson > ertr1...(a)student.uu.se - Architecture scopes all those concepts, that are exposed to programmer. - I have not yet wrote such a program, but due to difference in hardware (In 8086 Carry flag, Parity flag, Auxiliary carry flag, Zero flag, Overflow flag, Trace flag, Interrupt flag, Direction flag, and Sign flag) I think there can be certain programs that fail to run in 8088.
From: Ripunjay Tripathi on 10 Apr 2008 06:19
On Apr 10, 2:17 am, n...(a)cus.cam.ac.uk (Nick Maclaren) wrote: > In article <90aLj.47758$kN5.39...(a)newsfe1-gui.ntli.net>,"Wilco Dijkstra" <Wilco_dot_Dijks...(a)ntlworld.com> writes: > > |> "Ripunjay Tripathi" <ripunjay.tripa...(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 thishttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VLIWfor 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. I read the first paragraph. I think author should have added about VLIW's scope (i.e compile time and random ILP) . If you think otherwise can you please tell me that ?? A constructive talk with gurus is always helpful to us. Regards, Ripunjay Tripathi |