Timeline for Why was the Itanium processor difficult to write a compiler for?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
29 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S Nov 5, 2024 at 14:02 | history | suggested | John Dallman |
Add itanium tag: I'll create a wiki entry for it when the edit is approved.
|
|
| Nov 5, 2024 at 13:02 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Nov 5, 2024 at 14:02 | |||||
| Oct 17, 2024 at 18:20 | answer | added | John Dallman | timeline score: 2 | |
| Jun 13, 2024 at 22:03 | history | protected | gnat | ||
| Jan 1, 2024 at 15:20 | answer | added | John Dallman | timeline score: 4 | |
| Nov 21, 2023 at 21:34 | answer | added | gnasher729 | timeline score: 2 | |
| Feb 15, 2023 at 21:51 | history | unprotected | Mason Wheeler | ||
| Nov 3, 2020 at 19:40 | history | protected | gnat | ||
| Nov 2, 2020 at 16:57 | answer | added | Douglas Bell | timeline score: 4 | |
| Sep 1, 2020 at 19:57 | answer | added | chx | timeline score: 5 | |
| Apr 15, 2019 at 14:58 | history | unprotected | Mason Wheeler | ||
| Apr 5, 2016 at 19:35 | history | protected | gnat | ||
| Apr 5, 2016 at 19:16 | answer | added | gnasher729 | timeline score: 1 | |
| Apr 5, 2016 at 18:57 | answer | added | Dan T. | timeline score: 6 | |
| Apr 26, 2015 at 5:21 | answer | added | Lexi | timeline score: 11 | |
| Apr 23, 2015 at 3:08 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/#!/StackProgrammer/status/591076237789028353 | ||
| Apr 17, 2015 at 11:27 | answer | added | AProgrammer | timeline score: 11 | |
| Apr 17, 2015 at 11:12 | answer | added | rwong | timeline score: 45 | |
| Apr 17, 2015 at 10:51 | answer | added | Basile Starynkevitch | timeline score: 4 | |
| Apr 17, 2015 at 10:33 | answer | added | James Anderson | timeline score: 3 | |
| Apr 16, 2015 at 23:44 | comment | added | user22815 | I remember discussing this specific question in my graduate Computer Architecture class years ago. There were specific reasons why Intel did what they did, unfortunately I cannot dig up any definitive resources to provide an answer. | |
| Apr 16, 2015 at 22:26 | comment | added | supercat | @MasonWheeler: That would seem a reasonable question, but your third paragraph sure makes it sound like you were asking about a VM. | |
| Apr 16, 2015 at 22:22 | comment | added | Mason Wheeler | @supercat: I'm not talking about a hypothetical VM, but about a hypothetical IR that would be compiled the rest of the way by an Intel code generator. | |
| Apr 16, 2015 at 22:19 | comment | added | supercat | The P-system was dog slow compared with what native machine code could do. For future processor architectures the strategy you describe might be good now that the JVM has demonstrated that a JIT can achieve general-purpose code performance that's competitive with native code, but I don't think that was clear when IA64 was being developed. Burdening a new supposedly-faster architecture with a slow VM would probably not make buyers very happy. | |
| Apr 16, 2015 at 21:28 | answer | added | Robert Munn | timeline score: 46 | |
| Apr 16, 2015 at 21:01 | comment | added | Robert Harvey | Assuming this doesn't merely resolve to "what were they thinking," it's a pretty good question. | |
| Apr 16, 2015 at 20:39 | review | Close votes | |||
| Apr 18, 2015 at 12:00 | |||||
| Apr 16, 2015 at 20:38 | comment | added | user7043 | Really-low-level IRs (that are actually specified beyond being internal to one compiler, and intended to be compiled onto specific hardware rather than interpreted portably) are a more recent invention AFAIK. That's not to say they didn't exist at all, but I think the idea was not at all obvious or well-known for quite a while. I mean, most people still associate "bytecode" with "interpreter". | |
| Apr 16, 2015 at 20:19 | history | asked | Mason Wheeler | CC BY-SA 3.0 |