Article <ad853c06c5149280a309fec65b119939@www.novabbs.org>

Warning: mysqli::__construct(): (HY000/1203): User howardkn already has more than 'max_user_connections' active connections in D:\Inetpub\vhosts\howardknight.net\al.howardknight.net\includes\artfuncs.php on line 21
Failed to connect to MySQL: (1203) User howardkn already has more than 'max_user_connections' active connections
Warning: mysqli::query(): Couldn't fetch mysqli in D:\Inetpub\vhosts\howardknight.net\al.howardknight.net\index.php on line 66
Article <ad853c06c5149280a309fec65b119939@www.novabbs.org>

Deutsch English Français Italiano

<ad853c06c5149280a309fec65b119939@www.novabbs.org>

View for Bookmarking (what is this?)
Look up another Usenet article

Path: ...!news.misty.com!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: First-Part-Done (was Re: Byte Addressability And Beyond)
Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2024 16:36:37 +0000
Organization: Rocksolid Light
Message-ID: <ad853c06c5149280a309fec65b119939@www.novabbs.org>
References: <v0s17o$2okf4$2@dont-email.me> <v34v62$ln01$1@dont-email.me> <7yn5O.33584$9xU7.29321@fx17.iad> <v39caf$1jtgk$1@dont-email.me> <v3a386$14g8$1@gal.iecc.com> <v3jud0$3qduu$9@dont-email.me> <Wbk7O.8604$7jpd.3893@fx47.iad>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3086945"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="65wTazMNTleAJDh/pRqmKE7ADni/0wesT78+pyiDW8A";
User-Agent: Rocksolid Light
X-Rslight-Posting-User: ac58ceb75ea22753186dae54d967fed894c3dce8
X-Rslight-Site: $2y$10$d4lck9wwO1N/oKoGsTYRQuZe6oCoDuz.dxIWaZXSFVpYSLljQKC9m
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 1912
Lines: 19

Scott Lurndal wrote:

> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> writes:
>>On Thu, 30 May 2024 14:42:14 -0000 (UTC), John Levine wrote:
>>
>>> The condition code tells you which it was.  If it was an interrupt, you
>>> just branch back and keep going.
>>
>>Does it really hurt performance for the CPU to keep track of the fact
>> that 
>>an instruction has to be restarted after an interrupt?

It is already a requirement that we have precise interrupts. Those Rqs
impose that the unfinished instruction is pointed at by IP on return.

> Yes, of course.  And it complicates the design, which makes it harder
> to verify, particularly for an out-of-order design.

If you can backup mispredicted branches, you have all the OoO HW to
restart a long running instruction.