Talk:Explicitly parallel instruction computing

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Explicitly parallel instruction computing article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Unnamed section[edit]

I rewrote this article with much more technical content. The previous version was very vague, mentioning making programs parallel. Dyl 16:15, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)

I think the end might need some updating. HP (as well as some other firms) have pledged to put substantial money into the Itanium over the next few years (the announcement is very recent though). -- Josh. March 31, 2006

"EPIC" is either synonymous with "Itanium Architecture", or it is not. If it is, then this article should be merged into the Itanium article. If not, then Itanium-specific information does not belong here. -Arch dude (talk) 03:25, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see this terminology finding use except as related to style aspects of the Itanium Architecture. I agree it should be folded into that article. --Josh (talk) 03:22, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two years ago, someone decided to entitle the grab-bag list of architectural features "Moving Beyond VLIW". This was incorrect, since several of the features were common in VLIWs from the beginning. Saying they were incorporated to improve ILP was correct, however. The actual novel architectural features would be more sensibly included in a list (e.g. the Not-a-Thing bit) called "Moving Beyond VLIW". I'll fix this when I get a chance, though I do think it would make more sense to just incorporate parts of this into the Itanium article, where appropriate. --Josh (talk) 03:22, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure, if this sentence in the article makes sense:

| Each group of multiple software instructions is called a bundle. Each of the bundles has a stop bit indicating if this set of operations is depended upon by the subsequent bundle.

This sounds like operations would depend on something, that is executed later.

Shouldn't it be

| Each group of multiple software instructions is called a bundle. Each of the bundles has a stop bit indicating if the subsequent bundle depend on the result of this set of operations

or

| Each group of multiple software instructions is called a bundle. Each of the bundles has a stop bit indicating if this set of operations depends upon the antecedent bundle.

or

| ... set of operations depends upon the results of the former bundle. 129.69.50.79 (talk) 15:10, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]