Meltdown Proof-of-Concept

Re:Meltdown Proof-of-Concept by _wmd on Tuesday January 09, 2018 @09:37PM (#16112154)

There's no reason to invent new terminology for speculative execution. Also, the mapping between the variety of CPU caches and real memory has been known imperfect since the beginning of time.

But meanwhile, yes, can definitely agree how fucking cool it all is

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Meltdown Proof-of-Concept by tptacek on Tuesday January 09, 2018 @10:00PM (#16112254)

What new terminology got invented?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Meltdown Proof-of-Concept by _wmd on Wednesday January 10, 2018 @12:26AM (#16112747)

Perhaps I've been living under a rock for the past 30 years, but transient instructions are a new idea for me

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Meltdown Proof-of-Concept by tptacek on Wednesday January 10, 2018 @12:45AM (#16112812)

What's the "old" term for speculated instructions that aren't retired?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Meltdown Proof-of-Concept by mehrdadn on Wednesday January 10, 2018 @04:18AM (#16113539)

I've never heard of a term for them but I would find "speculated instructions" clear enough in context.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Meltdown Proof-of-Concept by tptacek on Wednesday January 10, 2018 @09:47AM (#16115231)

"Speculated instructions" is ambiguous, because it includes instructions that are retired, and we specifically care about the ones that aren't.

[ Parent | on HN ]