Picking N-th ready element (e.g. in an OOO scheduler)
|
Prev: Cheap Wholesale Air Force One 25 Women
Next: x86 simulator (Was Re: RISC load-store verses x86 Add from memory.)
From: jacko on 18 Jul 2010 17:48 On 18 July, 22:19, MitchAlsup <MitchAl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > On Jul 17, 8:33 pm, jacko <jackokr...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > A resistive metal wire metal layer called > > Schematics or <just stop> N-picking is silly, 1-picking on N ques is not. Schematics of a 1 picker you already have. I have already supplied you with a schematic symbol of the DISCO-FET titled Q1. Schematics of a logic interconnect technology are 'obvoius', pity you have dificulty in drawing a close pair of lines/or a thicker one on an existing schematic. The End.
From: Andy Glew "newsgroup at on 21 Jul 2010 01:17 On 7/18/2010 2:48 PM, jacko wrote: > On 18 July, 22:19, MitchAlsup<MitchAl...(a)aol.com> wrote: >> On Jul 17, 8:33 pm, jacko<jackokr...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> A resistive metal wire metal layer called >> >> Schematics or<just stop> > > N-picking is silly, 1-picking on N ques is not. > > Schematics of a 1 picker you already have. > > I have already supplied you with a schematic symbol of the DISCO-FET > titled Q1. > > Schematics of a logic interconnect technology are 'obvoius', pity you > have dificulty in drawing a close pair of lines/or a thicker one on an > existing schematic. > > The End. Yes, The End. If everything that you were blathering about amounted to making some existing wires "a close pair of lines", then you weren't even talking about the logic. You were just making the gates more efficiently. Supposedly. If you think that supplying "a schematic symbol of the DISCO-FET" is a contribution, you are thinking magically. And while there is value to talking about "N-picking is silly, 1-picking on N queues is not", saying it is silly reflects on you - since Mitch has already shown circuits that are surprisingly efficient at small scale, while this thread started off with a way of making it efficient at large scale. The only reason this discussion lasted as long as it did was that you were unable to make clear statements such as the above earlier. Now that I can see clearly what you were talking about, yes, it truly was wasted bandwidth.
From: jacko on 21 Jul 2010 08:09
On 21 July, 06:17, Andy Glew <"newsgroup at comp-arch.net"> wrote: > On 7/18/2010 2:48 PM, jacko wrote: > > > > > > > On 18 July, 22:19, MitchAlsup<MitchAl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > >> On Jul 17, 8:33 pm, jacko<jackokr...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >>> A resistive metal wire metal layer called > > >> Schematics or<just stop> > > > N-picking is silly, 1-picking on N ques is not. > > > Schematics of a 1 picker you already have. > > > I have already supplied you with a schematic symbol of the DISCO-FET > > titled Q1. > > > Schematics of a logic interconnect technology are 'obvoius', pity you > > have dificulty in drawing a close pair of lines/or a thicker one on an > > existing schematic. > > > The End. > > Yes, The End. > > If everything that you were blathering about amounted to making some > existing wires "a close pair of lines", then you weren't even talking > about the logic. You were just making the gates more efficiently. > Supposedly. The logic library will need the output wire, making into 2 output wires and revoval of the metal routing between the two drive drain's, but it will still be the gate type is was. > If you think that supplying "a schematic symbol of the DISCO-FET" is a > contribution, you are thinking magically. We'll one tribune deserves another. > And while there is value to talking about "N-picking is silly, 1-picking > on N queues is not", saying it is silly reflects on you - since Mitch > has already shown circuits that are surprisingly efficient at small > scale, while this thread started off with a way of making it efficient > at large scale. Yes and then those picked instructions will then have contention for the register pool. > The only reason this discussion lasted as long as it did was that you > were unable to make clear statements such as the above earlier. Now that > I can see clearly what you were talking about, yes, it truly was wasted > bandwidth. End of Titles. |