MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2113124751 · doi:10.1145/356989.357009

OS and compiler considerations in the design of the IA-64 architecture

2000· article· en· W2113124751 on OpenAlexaff
Rumi Zahir, Jonathan Ross, Dale Morris, Drew Hess

Bibliographic record

VenueACM SIGPLAN Notices · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicParallel Computing and Optimization Techniques
Canadian institutionsHewlett-Packard (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceCompilerInstruction-level parallelismInstruction setComputer architectureExploitParallelism (grammar)ArchitectureAddressing modeParallel computingProgramming languageOperating systemInstructions per cycle

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Increasing demands for processor performance have outstripped the pace of process and frequency improvements, pushing designers to find ways of increasing the amount of work that can be processed in parallel. Traditional RISC architectures use hardware approaches to obtain more instruction-level parallelism, with the compiler and the operating system (OS) having only indirect visibility into the mechanisms used.The IA-64 architecture [14] was specifically designed to enable systems which create and exploit high levels of instruction-level parallelism by explicitly encoding a program's parallelism in the instruction set [25]. This paper provides a qualitative summary of the IA-64 architecture features that support control and data speculation, and register stacking. The paper focusses on the functional synergy between these architectural elements (rather than their individual performance merits), and emphasizes how they were designed for cooperation between processor hardware, compilers and the OS.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.029
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.236 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations16
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueACM SIGPLAN NoticesSame topicParallel Computing and Optimization TechniquesFrench-language works237,207