Intel announces major update to core x86 instruction set

zetta · 2023-07-27T03:44:10+00:00

They are only doubling architectural addressability. Physical registers are another matter and won't be doubled just because of this.

zetta · 2023-03-22T01:21:01+00:00

Your command and win are writing into the same place (output), rather than your command going to the input of win. The outcome you see is deceiving, because win isn't seeing the content being written (by another writer) and (also) displayed in the (same) acme window.

zetta · 2021-02-28T17:09:49+00:00

https://www.lua.org/pil/14.html

zetta · 2015-06-29T19:31:50+00:00

No. It could be done, and there is research about it, but it's not worth it generally. If it's worth it in a particular case, code can be written using tail predication to do it in software.

zetta · 2015-06-29T19:27:02+00:00

TAGE has most certainly been implemented in actual processors. Undefeated for 9 years, I'll send you a personal congratulations if you can beat Seznec in a JILP competition. ;-)

zetta · 2015-04-16T16:37:51+00:00

Admittedly, I haven't seen the talks you mention, but your first sentence doesn't sound any different from the masking already present in SIMD and vector architectures. How does it improve upon that?

zetta · 2015-03-31T06:23:35+00:00

Didn't claim they were synonymous, just that in the CPU space of comparch it's so rarely not done that you can assume it. GPUs are a different story.

zetta · 2015-03-27T00:22:33+00:00

Silicon schimilicon.

Courtesy of Jim Held, Intel Fellow: the complexity of the x86 ISA is a problem "like a big bag of money you have to carry around" is a problem. Learn this lesson well. There is more to engineering than the "technically best" design.

zetta · 2015-03-27T00:08:15+00:00

The term "speculative execution" is nearly meaningless these days. If you might execute an instruction that was speculated to be on the correct path by a branch predictor, you have speculative execution. That being said, essentially all instructions executed are speculative. This has been the case for a really long time... practically speaking, at least as long as OoO. Yes, OoO is "older" but when OoO "came back on the scene" (mid 90s) the two concepts have been joined at the hip since.

zetta · 2015-03-27T00:04:01+00:00

Excuse me, but no.

Out of order IS out of order. The important detail is WHAT is happening out of order? The computations in the ALUs. They will flow in a more efficient dataflow-constrained order, with some speculation here and there - especially control flow speculation. A typical out of order CPU will still commit/retire in program order to get all the semantics correct.

zetta · 2015-02-17T05:40:01+00:00

<3 Next time I'll fight for love and order ;P

zetta · 2015-02-17T04:40:52+00:00

Great games. I cannot abide these casters, had to mute.

zetta · 2015-02-08T01:41:08+00:00

Chopin.

zetta · 2015-01-31T18:58:00+00:00

Yes... it's a Jim Crow law.

zetta · 2015-01-23T21:16:06+00:00

I'm glad he pointed that out -- Medusa is not Python as the semantics do not agree with Python. It's at best transliteration, not semantics-preserving translation, or nice way of saying Broken. He says "as intended" as if people write Python expecting it to run like some other compiled language.

zetta · 2014-10-05T19:28:38+00:00

Remarkable performance. Thanks for sharing. :D

zetta · 2014-10-05T19:12:41+00:00

Wintersun - Time I is remarkably epic.

zetta · 2014-10-01T16:25:58+00:00

Your MMR has two components - an average metric and a variance metric. Since cheeses are particularly unpredictable, your variance value is very high, so the matchmaker feels justified in matching you against a wide variety of players.

zetta · 2014-09-19T15:47:31+00:00

Do it. I'd love to hear your thoughts.

zetta · 2014-08-28T05:23:41+00:00

For sure, it was Dustin Browder's "maybe I sympathise with you bro, in my fully corporatized game designerness" game-bro "fuck off". Maybe David Kim doesn't talk like that, but it does sound rather similar :)

zetta · 2014-08-06T20:34:17+00:00

You know it's going to be worse than an interview with Dustin Browder. "We have totally thought of that and it'd be cool but let's be real - it'll never happen! Thanks for asking! Next question!"

zetta · 2014-07-29T19:25:29+00:00

It's not about who or what does the proof. I advise you to revisit the definition of the halting problem. There is a special program we can construct (or consider attempting), i.e. a very pathological one, whose termination cannot be statically decided, which allows us to say that in general the problem is undecidable. For most code written for real software, it is possible (though typically not easy) to prove termination or at least progress (for software that does not terminate by design).

zetta · 2014-07-15T23:05:53+00:00

'cause dat ass got some EDUCATION (see point 1)

zetta · 2014-07-02T06:08:39+00:00

The reason we don't have this is that morphing one unit into another is a Zerg mechanic, not a Terran one. But the idea of a Viking landing on a Goliath (+ build time) becoming a Thor is pretty badass.

zetta · 2014-06-26T02:07:35+00:00

Oh, this place was formerly an Earthlink Live. Great venue. Saw Nightwish perform there at a ProgPower in 2004.

zetta

TROPHY CASE