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: Rick Jones on 5 May 2008 19:58 Greg Lindahl <lindahl(a)pbm.com> wrote: > I think one of the SPECcpu benchmarks has a significant opportunity Nit picking, but _which_ SPECcpu? There are at least SPECcpu2006, SPECcpu2000, SPECcpu95 and SPECcpu92, and I seem to recall an '89 version but that one isn't mentioned on SPEC's website: http://www.spec.org/benchmarks.html rick jones -- Process shall set you free from the need for rational thought. these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway... :) feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hp.com but NOT BOTH...
From: Greg Lindahl on 5 May 2008 20:36 In article <fvo6uo$eb8$3(a)usenet01.boi.hp.com>, Rick Jones <rick.jones2(a)hp.com> wrote: >Greg Lindahl <lindahl(a)pbm.com> wrote: >> I think one of the SPECcpu benchmarks has a significant opportunity > >Nit picking, but _which_ SPECcpu? I don't recall. It was something discussed while I was at PathScale, so it must be one or both of SPECcpu2000 and SPECcpu2006. -- greg
From: Eugene Miya on 6 May 2008 18:36 In article <fvpg0a$nap$1(a)gemini.csx.cam.ac.uk>, Nick Maclaren <nmm1(a)cus.cam.ac.uk> wrote: >In article <mir5f5-l65.ln1(a)annette.mikron.de>, >Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan(a)gmx.de> writes: >|> Nick Maclaren wrote: >|> > I spend some months on it, and have looked at TeX. I wouldn't. >|> > I would put it in the garbage. >|> >|> Actually, I think there's a lot of inherent parallelism in the task TeX >|> tries to achieve (typesetting). The way it's implemented however assures >|> that everything is serialized. The same is true for GCC (with less impact >|> for the user, because you can always make -j for more parallelism). > >Yes. However, that paragraph on its own is misleading - I wasn't >referring to TeX, but to the X Windowing System Toolkit and widget >sets - the context made that clear. It's Knuth's challenge. If either of you even thinks you can get significant parallelism from TeX, show me, and I will forward to DEK. I can assure you that he would be amused. I watched as about a 100 people at Stanford back from that challenge. Remember we are looking for a factor of at least 8. >TeX is merely grim, as one would expect from a Pascal-derived source. Don't use. I don't. Usually. Jill, his wife, doesn't use it. --
From: Eugene Miya on 6 May 2008 18:49 The TeX issue is a separate trhead with Bernd. In article <fvp4ab$isu$1(a)gemini.csx.cam.ac.uk>, Nick Maclaren <nmm1(a)cus.cam.ac.uk> wrote: >|> >The foresighted people who were saying it failed to influence the >|> >unthinking majority[*]. If you look up some of the papers coming out >|> >of the Algol 68 camp, you will find such references. In the event, >|> >Algol 68 eventually sank > >Er, no. In all respects. The sad thing about the attitude of the >'winners' in IT and politics is that they try to deny the positive >achievements of the 'losers'. Algol 68 showed that many of the >current problems with programming languages are simply unnecessary. >Those who will not study history are condemned to repeat it. Yeah yeah, we've heard that all before with the Multics guys. Meanwhile others write Java, Perl, Python.... And even BASIC. Winners get to write history. For better or worse. >And I am not referring to Dennis Ritchie in that - he did not belong >to an opposing camp, but to an orthogonal camp. > >|> You likely have to be more specific about references. Given their own >|> devices most people would look up the wrong references. > >Doubtless. However, they are all on paper, some are a couple of miles >from where I work, and most are not available in Cambridge. You can >do your own leg work :-) Your problem, not mine. Like I noted the Kevin Bacon character in Animal House jumping up an down trying to keep "order." --
From: Nick Maclaren on 6 May 2008 04:19
In article <481f97dc$1(a)darkstar>, eugene(a)cse.ucsc.edu (Eugene Miya) writes: |> |> >True, but have you looked at the code of the X Windowing System Toolkit |> >and widget sets? And C++ programs that use similar paradigms? |> |> I've insufficent knowledge of X internals. C++ OOP has its on set of |> problems. I'd put X in the TeX class of sequential algorithms for the |> time being. I spend some months on it, and have looked at TeX. I wouldn't. I would put it in the garbage. |> >The foresighted people who were saying it failed to influence the |> >unthinking majority[*]. If you look up some of the papers coming out |> >of the Algol 68 camp, you will find such references. In the event, |> >Algol 68 eventually sank (though a few of its features have returned |> >in Fortran 90), and the "higher level language" people faded away. |> |> I know few who worked on 68. Buzz U. maybe. Dennis maybe to a small |> degree. Wirth, too maybe. It's not something anyone really chews the |> fat about. Most people look forward. Er, no. In all respects. The sad thing about the attitude of the 'winners' in IT and politics is that they try to deny the positive achievements of the 'losers'. Algol 68 showed that many of the current problems with programming languages are simply unnecessary. Those who will not study history are condemned to repeat it. And I am not referring to Dennis Ritchie in that - he did not belong to an opposing camp, but to an orthogonal camp. |> You likely have to be more specific about references. Given their own |> devices most people would look up the wrong references. Doubtless. However, they are all on paper, some are a couple of miles from where I work, and most are not available in Cambridge. You can do your own leg work :-) Regards, Nick Maclaren. |