Article View: comp.arch
Article #22792Standard Terminology?
From: singhal
Date: Mon, 05 Mar 1990 22:03
Date: Mon, 05 Mar 1990 22:03
29 lines
1375 bytes
1375 bytes
I am having a hard time deciding on the correct term to use in describing certain computing structures. Rather than invent new terminology, or add to the confusion by misusing terms, I am soliciting any STANDARD definitions that exist for the following terms (and any closely related terms): 1) Coprocessor 2) Attached Processor 3) Function Unit 4) Processing Element By STANDARD definition, I mean a definition used consistently by (roughly in order of preference): a) A standards organization (eg. ISO, IEEE) b) A major computer company c) A "standard" textbook (eg. Siewiorek, Bell, Newell) d) A prominent person in the field You get the idea: I'm not soliciting hordes of pet personal opinions (unless the person is in category d above!). I have not found satisfactory definitions yet in the textbooks that I know of and dont know where else look. Tnanks, Ashok Singhal (singhal@proxima.berkeley.edu)
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<22660@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!attcan!uunet!ogicse!uwm.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!ames!pasteur!proxima.uucp!singhalShow Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!attcan!uunet!ogicse!uwm.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!ames!pasteur!proxima.uucp!singhal From: singhal@proxima.uucp Newsgroups: comp.arch Subject: Standard Terminology? Message-ID: <22660@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> Date: 5 Mar 90 22:03:35 GMT Sender: news@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU Reply-To: singhal@proxima.uucp () Organization: University of California at Berkeley Lines: 29