Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!mailrus!ncar!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: <28200237@urbsdc>
Date: 16 Nov 88 15:15:00 GMT
References: <70@armada.UUCP>
Lines: 19
Nf-ID: #R:armada.UUCP:70:urbsdc:28200237:000:881
Nf-From: urbsdc.Urbana.Gould.COM!aglew    Nov 16 09:15:00 1988


>/* Written  3:41 pm  Nov 14, 1988 by stevew@nsc.nsc.com in urbsdc:comp.arch */
>In article <5087@mit-vax.LCS.MIT.EDU> spectre@mit-vax.UUCP (Joseph D. Morrison) writes:
>>In article <28200228@urbsdc> aglew@urbsdc.Urbana.Gould.COM writes:
>>Naturally, as soon as you do this you will need some mechanism for
>>handling the various conflicts that occur when two instructions in the
>>pipeline want to use the same register. This is when you can use
>>scoreboarding, or whatever you want.
>This is where the discussion comes from.  VLIW advocates letting the 
>compiler manage both the pipe and register utilization since the 
>compiler knows about global resource utilization where a scoreboard 
>doesn't.
>
>Steve Wilson 
>National Semiconductor
>[The above opinion is mine, not that of my employer. ]

I normally don't bother, but I'd like to point out that the quote
is not mine.