🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <36880@mips.mips.COM> mash@mips.COM (John Mashey) writes:
>One more time: calling load-interlocks scoreboards is just marketing
>silliness, confusing, and contradictory to terminology long-used
>in computer architecture.
>Jonathan Smith recently posted a reference to one of the original
>360/91 papers that describe REAL scoreboards, and maybe somebody
>will post a reference to one of the descriptions of the CDC machines
>that have them.

Umm, usually the term "scoreboard" is reserved for Thornton's work at CDC,
with the less aggressive approach used by Cray, etc.

Tomasulo's work on the 360/91 is usually considered to go beyond 
scoreboarding.  

IE. scoreboarding is not the ultimate in aggressive scheduling.
At least not in the terminology that I have seen applied in this
field for 8 years.

(Personally, I tend to use the term "Tomasulo" to describe the most aggressive
approaches, that let you skip O->I, I->O, and O-> dependencies, as well
as functional unit busy conditions, etc.   Many researchers, however, harp
on the limitations in Tomasulo's implementation (the Common Data Bus) and invent
their own terms for the ultimate...)
--
Andy Glew, aglew@uiuc.edu