Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!cwjcc!hal!nic.MR.NET!tank!uxc!uxc.cso.uiuc.edu!urbsdc!aglew
From: aglew@urbsdc.Urbana.Gould.COM
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: VLIW (was please re-send mail)
Message-ID: <28200236@urbsdc>
Date: 13 Nov 88 21:41:00 GMT
References: <70@armada.UUCP>
Lines: 21
Nf-ID: #R:armada.UUCP:70:urbsdc:28200236:000:926
Nf-From: urbsdc.Urbana.Gould.COM!aglew    Nov 13 15:41:00 1988


>It seems to me that the issue of VLIW versus scoreboarding is the
>wrong one to discuss.
>
>Scoreboarding is but one of several techniques for managing a
>pipeline.  (Some alternative techniques are micro-dataflow, simple
>stalling, or letting the compiler stick no-ops in the right places.
>The simple schemes can also be combined with "register bypass" to
>improve pipeline performance.)
>
>        Joe Morrison
>
>MIT Laboratory for Computer Science     UUCP: ...!mit-eddie!vx!spectre
>545 Technology Square, Room 425         ARPA: spectre@vx.lcs.mit.edu
>Cambridge, Massachusetts, 02139         (617) 253-5881

This is pedantic, but "managing a pipeline" is overly restrictive.
What you mean is managing an instruction and resource scheduling
system, of which a pipeline is only one possibility. To me,
pipeline implies sequentiality - saying "pipe network" lets you
get out of order, but I'd still prefer a better term.