←back to thread

Intel Patents 'Software Defined Supercore'

(www.tomshardware.com)
34 points dmmalam | 6 comments | 01 Sep 25 11:44 UTC | HN request time: 0.708s | source | bottom
Show context
arccy ◴[01 Sep 25 12:18 UTC] No.45092137[source]▶
how long until we get something like spectre for this...
replies(1): >>45092189 #
1. snickerbockers ◴[01 Sep 25 12:27 UTC] No.45092189[source]▶
I doubt it, based on TFA it looks like it has more in common with multi-issue pipelining and ooe than speculative execution.
replies(3): >>45092435 #>>45092800 #>>45092988 #
2. neuroelectron ◴[01 Sep 25 13:09 UTC] No.45092435[source]▶
There's a lot of processor state in each core which would be a great place to hide exploits when the microcode is assuming synced operation between cores.
3. mhh__ ◴[01 Sep 25 14:08 UTC] No.45092800[source]▶
Isn't the whole point of OOE that the design is inherently speculative otherwise there's basically nothing to dispatch?
4. jokoon ◴[01 Sep 25 14:38 UTC] No.45092988[source]▶
by TFA you mean the fucking article?

why swear? not I have a problem with it

replies(2): >>45093001 #>>45093978 #
5. Cthulhu_ ◴[01 Sep 25 14:41 UTC] No.45093001[source]▶
I don't get it either, seems to be a HN culture thing. I get it when people reply to people who haven't read the article (like in RTFM), but it's often used unsolicited and IMO unnecessary.
6. rep_lodsb ◴[01 Sep 25 16:15 UTC] No.45093978[source]▶
"the fine article"