Re: [Lit.] Buffer overruns
From: Brian Inglis (Brian.Inglis_at_SystematicSW.Invalid)
Date: 02/01/05
- Next message: Hank Oredson: "Re: [Lit.] Buffer overruns"
- Previous message: Hank Oredson: "Re: [Lit.] Buffer overruns"
- In reply to: Phil Carmody: "Re: [Lit.] Buffer overruns"
- Next in thread: Phil Carmody: "Re: [Lit.] Buffer overruns"
- Reply: Phil Carmody: "Re: [Lit.] Buffer overruns"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2005 16:30:43 GMT
On 31 Jan 2005 19:51:05 +0200 in alt.folklore.computers, Phil Carmody
<thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>jmfbahciv@aol.com writes:
>> Not really. A CPU still executes only one instruction at a time.
>
>Of all the nonsense you've ever come out with, that has got to be
>the most absurdly wrong. Even last decade it was absurdly wrong.
^ three
>Six words, old-timer - super-scalar, pipelined, and OOO.
IIRC IBM took out those patents on the 370 (maybe 360) series.
Super-scalar is a more recent marketing term.
--
Thanks. Take care, Brian Inglis Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Brian.Inglis@CSi.com (Brian[dot]Inglis{at}SystematicSW[dot]ab[dot]ca)
fake address use address above to reply
- Next message: Hank Oredson: "Re: [Lit.] Buffer overruns"
- Previous message: Hank Oredson: "Re: [Lit.] Buffer overruns"
- In reply to: Phil Carmody: "Re: [Lit.] Buffer overruns"
- Next in thread: Phil Carmody: "Re: [Lit.] Buffer overruns"
- Reply: Phil Carmody: "Re: [Lit.] Buffer overruns"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|