Designers of instruction set architectures (ISAs) and processors make power and performance trade-offs. For example, if a designer chooses an ISA with instructions that deliver higher performance, then the power consumption by the processor may be higher as well. Alternatively, if the designer chooses an ISA with instructions that consume lower power, then the performance may be lower. The power consumption may be tied to the amount of hardware resources of the processor, such as arithmetic logic units (ALUs), cache lines, or registers, used by the instructions during execution. Use of a large amount of such hardware resources may deliver higher performance at the cost of higher power consumption. Alternatively, the use of a small amount of such hardware resources may result in lower power consumption at the cost of lower performance. Compilers may be used to compile high-level code into instructions compatible with the ISA and the processor architecture.
A processor core in an instruction block-based microarchitecture is configured so that an instruction window and operand buffers are decoupled for independent operation in which instructions in the block are not strictly tied to resources such as control bits and operands that are maintained in the operand buffers. Instead, pointers are established among instructions in the block and the resources so that control state can be established for a refreshed instruction block (i.e., an instruction block that is reused without re-fetching it from an instruction cache) by following the pointers. Such decoupling of the instruction window from the operand space can provide greater processor efficiency, particularly in multiple core arrays where refreshing is utilized (for example when executing program code that uses tight loops), because the operands and control bits are pre-validated.
This Summary is provided to introduce a selection of concepts in a simplified form that are further described below in the Detailed Description. This Summary is not intended to identify key features or essential features of the claimed subject matter, nor is it intended to be used as an aid in determining the scope of the claimed subject matter. Furthermore, the claimed subject matter is not limited to implementations that solve any or all disadvantages noted in any part of this disclosure.
Like reference numerals indicate like elements in the drawings. Elements are not drawn to scale unless otherwise indicated.
The processor architecture 120 typically includes multiple processor cores (representatively indicated by reference numeral 125) in a tiled configuration that are interconnected by an on-chip network (not shown) and further interoperated with one or more level 2 (L2) caches (representatively indicated by reference numeral 130). While the number and configuration of cores and caches can vary by implementation, it is noted that the physical cores can be merged together, in a process termed “composing” during runtime of the program 115, into one or more larger logical processors that can enable more processing power to be devoted to a program execution. Alternatively, when program execution supports suitable thread-level parallelism, the cores 125 can be split, in a process called “decomposing,” to work independently and execute instructions from independent threads.
The front-end control unit 202 may include circuitry configured to control the flow of information through the processor core and circuitry to coordinate activities within it. The front-end control unit 202 also may include circuitry to implement a finite state machine (FSM) in which states enumerate each of the operating configurations that the processor core may take. Using opcodes (as described below) and/or other inputs (e.g., hardware-level signals), the FSM circuits in the front-end control unit 202 can determine the next state and control outputs.
Accordingly, the front-end control unit 202 can fetch instructions from the instruction cache 204 for processing by the instruction decoder 208. The front-end control unit 202 may exchange control information with other portions of the processor core 125 over control networks or buses. For example, the front-end control unit may exchange control information with a back-end control unit 224. The front-end and back-end control units may be integrated into a single control unit in some implementations.
The front-end control unit 202 may also coordinate and manage control of various cores and other parts of the processor architecture 120 (
The front-end control unit 202 may further process control information and meta-information regarding blocks of instructions that are executed atomically. For example, the front-end control unit 202 can process block headers that are associated with blocks of instructions. As discussed below in more detail, the block header may include control information and/or meta-information regarding the block of instructions. Accordingly, the front-end control unit 202 can include combinational logic, state machines, and temporary storage units, such as flip-flops to process the various fields in the block header.
The front-end control unit 202 may fetch and decode a single instruction or multiple instructions per clock cycle. The decoded instructions may be stored in an instruction window 210 that is implemented in processor core hardware as a buffer. The instruction window 210 can support an instruction scheduler 230, in some implementations, which may keep a ready state of each decoded instruction's inputs such as predications and operands. For example, when all of its inputs (if any) are ready, a given instruction may be woken up by instruction scheduler 230 and be ready to issue.
Before an instruction is issued, any operands required by the instruction may be stored in the left operand buffer 212 and/or the right operand buffer 214, as needed. Depending on the opcode of the instruction, operations may be performed on the operands using ALU 216 and/or ALU 218 or other functional units. The outputs of an ALU may be stored in an operand buffer or stored in one or more registers 220. Store operations that issue in a data flow order may be queued in load/store queue 222 until a block of instruction commits. When the block of instruction commits, the load/store queue 222 may write the committed block's stores to a memory. The branch predictor 206 may process block header information relating to branch exit types and factor that information in making branch predictions.
As noted above, the processor architecture 120 typically utilizes instructions organized in blocks that are fetched, executed, and committed atomically. Thus, a processor core may fetch the instructions belonging to a single block en masse, map them to the execution resources inside the processor core, execute the instructions, and commit their results in an atomic fashion. The processor may either commit the results of all instructions or nullify the execution of the entire block. Instructions inside a block may execute in a data flow order. In addition, the processor may permit the instructions inside a block to communicate directly with each other using messages or other suitable forms of communications. Thus an instruction that produces a result may, instead of writing the result to a register file, communicate that result to another instruction in the block that consumes the result. As an example, an instruction that adds the values stored in registers R1 and R2 may be expressed as shown in Table 1 below:
In this way, source operands are not specified with the instruction and instead, they are specified by the instructions that target the ADD instruction. The compiler 105 (
Each instruction may be of a suitable size, such as 32 bits, 64 bits, or another size. In the example shown in Table 2, each instruction may include an OPCODE field, a PR (predication) field, a BID (broadcast ID) field, an XOP (extended OPCODE) field, a TARGET1 field, and a TARGET2 field. The OPCODE field may specify a unique operation code for an instruction or a block of instructions, such as add, read, write, or multiply. The PR (predication) field may specify any predication associated with the instruction. For example, a two bit PR field may be used as follows: 00—not predicated, 01—reserved, 10—predicated on false, and 11—predicated on true. Thus, for example, if an instruction executes only if the result of a comparison is true, then that instruction may be predicated on the result of another instruction that performs the comparison. The BID (broadcast ID) field may support sending of an operand to any number of consumer instructions in a block. A 2-bit BID field may be used to encode the broadcast channel on which the instruction receives one of its operands. The XOP (extended OPCODE) field may support extending the types of opcodes. The TARGET1 and TARGET2 fields may allow up to two target instructions to be encoded. The target field may specify a consumer instruction of the result of the producer instruction, thus permitting direct communication between instructions.
Each block of instructions may have certain information associated with the block of instructions, such as control information and/or meta-information related to the block. This information may be generated by the compiler 105 during compilation of the program into the instructions 110 for execution on the processor architecture 120. Some of this information may be extracted by the compiler during compilation of a block of instructions and then examining the nature of the instructions during runtime.
In addition, the information associated with a block of instructions may be meta-information. For example, such information may be provided to a processor core using special instructions or instructions that provide target encoding related to registers or other memory that may have the relevant information associated with a block of instructions. In case of special instructions, the opcode field of such instructions can be used to communicate information relating to the block of instructions. In another example, such information may be maintained as part of the processor status word (PSW). For example, this information may advantageously help the processor execute the block of instructions more efficiently.
Various types of information can be provided to a processor core using a block header, special instructions, memory referenced locations, a processor status word (PSW), or various combinations thereof. An illustrative instruction block header 300 is shown in
While the block header shown in
In an illustrative example, the compiler 105 (
The extent of the information communicated using a block header or special instructions can be tailored depending upon the nature of the instructions in a block. For example, if the block of instructions includes a loop that is executed in a recurring manner, then more extensive information might be needed to encapsulate the control information associated with that block. The additional control information may allow a processor core to execute the loop more efficiently to thereby improve performance.
Alternatively, if there is a block of instructions that will be rarely executed, then relatively less information may suffice. For example, if the block of instructions includes several predicated control loops, then more information may be needed. Similarly, if the block of instructions has an extensive amount of instruction level parallelism, then more information may be needed as part of a block header or special instructions.
The additional control information in the block header or special instructions may be used, for example, to effectively exploit the instruction level parallelism in the block of instructions. If the block of instructions includes several branch predictions, then more information may be needed. The additional control information regarding branch predictions will typically enhance code execution with more efficiency as it can result in fewer pipeline flushes.
It is noted that the functionality corresponding to the fields in the block header may be combined or further separated. Similarly, a special instruction may provide information related to any one of the fields shown in
Likewise, a single special instruction may, when decoded, provide information regarding the size of the block of instructions and the information in the ID field. Unless indicated otherwise, the special instructions may be included anywhere in the block of instructions. For example, a BLOCK_SIZE #size instruction may contain an immediate field including a value of the size of a block of instructions. The immediate field may contain an integer value that provides the size information. Alternatively, the immediate field may include an encoded value relating to the size information so that the size information may be obtained by decoding the encoded value, for example, by looking up the value in a size table that may be expressed using one of logic, register, memory, or code stream. In another example, a BLOCK_ID #id special instruction may convey the block ID number.
A separate mathematical function or a memory-based table may map a block ID into the memory address of a block header. The block ID conveyed as part of such instruction may be unique to each block of instructions. In another example, a BLOCK_HDR_ID #id instruction may convey the block header ID number. A separate mathematical function or a memory-based table may map the block ID into the memory address of a block header. The block ID conveyed as part of such instruction may be shared by several blocks of instructions with the same header structure or fields.
In another example, a BLOCK_INFO #size, #exit types, #store mask, #write mask instruction may provide information regarding the enumerated fields of the instruction. These fields may correspond to any one of the fields discussed above with respect to Table 3. Other changes may be made to the block header structure and format and special instructions according to requirements of a given implementation. For example, additional fields may be provided that include information relating to the characteristics of a block of instructions. Particular fields can be included based on the frequency of the execution of the block of instructions.
The fields included in the block header structure, or information provided via special instructions or other mechanisms discussed earlier, may be part of a publicly available standard Instruction Set Architecture (ISA) of a particular processor or a family of processors. A subset of the fields may be a proprietary extension to the ISA. Certain bit values in the field may be part of the standard ISA for the processor, but certain other bit values in the field may provide proprietary functionality. This exemplary field may allow an ISA designer to add proprietary extensions to the ISA without disclosing entirely the nature and the functionality associated with the proprietary extension. Thus, in this instance, the compiler tools distributed by the ISA designer would support the proprietary bit values in the field, an entirely separate proprietary field, or a special instruction. The use of such a field may be particularly relevant to hardware accelerators that are proprietary to certain processor designs. Thus, a program may include a block header field or a special instruction that is unrecognizable; but the program may further include a recipe to decipher the field or decode the instruction.
The compiler 105 (
In step 405, the ages of fetched instruction blocks are explicitly tracked using, for example, an age vector. Thus, rather than use instruction block order (i.e., position) in the instruction window, which is typically used to implicitly track age, the control unit maintains explicit state. An age-ordered list of instruction blocks is maintained in step 410. Instruction block priority (where priority may be determined by the compiler in some cases) may also be tracked and a priority-ordered list of instruction blocks may also be maintained in some implementations.
In step 415, when an instruction block is identified for handling, the age-ordered list is searched to find a matching instruction block. The priority-ordered list may also be searched in some implementations for a match. If a matching instruction block is found, then it can be refreshed, in step 420, without having to re-fetch it from the instruction cache which can improve processor core efficiency. Such refreshing enables reuse of the instruction block in situations, for example, when a program executes in a tight loop and instructions branch back on themselves. Such efficiency increases may also be compounded when multiple processor cores are composed into a large scale array. When refreshing an instruction block, the instructions are left in place and only the valid bits in the operand buffer and load/store queue are cleared.
If a match to the instruction block is not found, then the age-ordered list (or the priority-ordered list) can be utilized again to find an instruction block that can be committed to open a slot in the instruction window for the new instruction block. For example, the oldest instruction block or the lowest priority instruction block may be committed (where a high priority block may be desired to keep buffered since there is likelihood of its future reuse). In step 425, the new instruction block is mapped into the available slot. The instruction block can be allocated using a bulk allocation process in which instructions in the block and all the resources associated with the instructions are fetched at once (i.e., en masse).
In step 430, the new instruction block is executed so that its instructions are committed atomically. Other instruction blocks may be executed in order of age, in a similar manner to a conventional reorder buffer, in step 435 to commit their respective instructions in an atomic manner.
The number of size entries that are included in the size table can vary by implementation. A greater number of size entries may be utilized to enable more granularity which may be beneficial in cases where there is a relatively wide distribution of instruction block sizes associated with a given program, but at a cost of increased overhead in typical implementations. In some cases, the number of sizes included in the table can be selected by the compiler to cover a particular distribution of instruction block sizes in a way that optimizes overall instruction packing density and to minimize no ops. For example, the sizes included in the size table can be selected to match commonly used block instruction sizes in the program. In step 715, the index is used to look up an instruction block size from the size table. The instruction block is mapped into an available slot in the instruction window based on its size in step 720.
In some implementations, as shown in step 725, the instruction window may be segmented into two or more sub-windows, for example, that use two or more different sizes. Such variation in the segmented sub-windows may enable further accommodation for a given distribution of instruction block sizes and may further increase instruction packing density. The segmentation may also be dynamically performed in some scenarios.
In step 820, resources associated with the instruction block are bulk allocated. Restrictions designated in the instruction block header are used when mapping the instruction block in the instruction window in step 825. These may include, for example, restrictions on alignment and the capacity of the instruction window to buffer instruction blocks. In step 830, the order of the instruction blocks in the instruction window is tracked by the control unit and blocks may be committed out of order in some situations. For example, rather than use a circular buffer of instruction blocks in which blocks are handled based on their position in the instruction window, blocks can be prioritized so that heavily used, or particularly important instruction blocks are handled out of order which can increase processing efficiency.
In step 835, the age of instruction blocks can be explicitly tracked and instruction blocks can be committed based on such explicitly-tracked age in some cases. The instruction block is refreshed in step 840 (that is, reused without having to re-fetch the instruction block from the instruction cache).
Instead of tightly coupling the resources and instructions, the instruction window and operand buffers are decoupled so that they can be operated independently by maintaining one or more pointers among the resources and the decoded instructions in the block, as shown in step 1015. When an instruction block is refreshed in step 1020 (that is, reused without having to re-fetch the instruction block from the instruction cache), then the resources can be reused by following the pointers back to an original control state in step 1025.
Such decoupling may provide increased processor core efficiency, particularly when instruction blocks are refreshed without re-fetching as typically occurs, for example, when a program executes in a tight loop and instructions are repeatedly utilized. By establishing control state through the pointers, the resources are effectively pre-validated without additional expenditure of processing cycles and other costs. Such efficiency increases may also be compounded when multiple processor cores are composed into a large scale array.
In step 1120, the order of the instruction blocks in the instruction window is tracked by the control unit and blocks may be committed out of order in some situations. For example, rather than use a circular buffer of instruction blocks in which blocks are handled based on their position in the instruction window, blocks can be prioritized so that heavily used, or particularly important instruction blocks are handled out of order which can increase processing efficiency.
In step 1125, the instruction window is decoupled from the operand buffer so that, for example, blocks of instructions and blocks of operands are managed independently (i.e., without using a strict correspondence between instructions and operands). As noted above, the decoupling increases efficiency by enabling resources to be pre-validated when an instruction block is refreshed.
When an instruction block is refreshed, in block 1220, the pointers can be followed back to the tracked state. In step 1225, when an instruction blocks commits, the control bits in the operand buffer are cleared and a new pointer is set. As with the method discussed above, the instruction window and operand buffers are decoupled so that blocks of instructions and blocks of operands are maintained by the control unit on a non-corresponding basis, in step 1230.
The bulk allocation of instruction blocks also enhances processor core efficiency through the refresh feature in which instruction blocks are reused without re-fetching as typically occurs, for example, when a program executes in a tight loop and instructions branch back on themselves. Such efficiency increases may also be compounded when multiple processor cores are composed into a large scale array. When refreshing an instruction block, the instructions are left in place and only the valid bits in the operand buffer and load/store queue are cleared. This enables the fetching of the refreshed instruction blocks to be bypassed entirely.
The bulk allocation of instruction blocks also enables additional processing efficiencies when a group of instructions and resources are in place. For example, operands and explicit messages may be sent from one instruction in the block to another. Such functionality is not enabled in conventional architectures because one instruction is unable to send anything to another instruction that has yet to be allocated. Instructions that generate constants can also pin values in the operand buffers so that they remain valid after refresh so they do not need to be regenerated each time the instruction block executes.
When instruction blocks are mapped into the instruction window, in step 1310, they are subject to constraints that may be applied by mapping policies, restrictions designated in the block header, or both in step 1315. In some cases, the policies can be set by a compiler depending on the particular requirements of a given program. The designated restrictions can include, for example, restrictions on alignment and the restrictions on the capacity of the instruction window to buffer instruction blocks.
In step 1320, the instruction window can, in some implementations, be segmented into sub-windows of the same size or different sizes. As instruction block sizes are often randomly or unevenly distributed for a given program, such variation in the segmented sub-windows may more efficiently accommodate a given distribution of instruction block sizes to thereby increase instruction packing density in the instruction window. The segmentation may also be dynamically performed in some scenarios depending on the distribution of block sizes that is being currently handled by the processor core.
In some implementations, the instruction block header may encode an index or include a pointer to a size table that is implemented using one of logic, register, memory, or code stream. The size table can include instruction block size entries so that an instruction block size can be looked up from the table in step 1325. Use of the encoded index and size table may enhance instruction packing density in an instruction block by affording more granularity in available block sizes to reduce the occurrence of nops (no operations) when a block includes a relatively small number of instructions when implementing branching, for example.
In step 1420, a policy may be applied that includes tracking the order of the instruction blocks in the instruction window by the control unit. Blocks may be committed out of order in some situations, for example, rather than using a circular buffer of instruction blocks in which blocks are handled based on their position in the instruction window. In step 1425, a policy may be applied that includes handling blocks based on priority (which may be designated by the compiler in some scenarios) so that blocks which are heavily used, or are particularly important, are handled out of order which can further increase processing efficiency.
In step 1430, a policy may be applied that includes explicitly tracking the age of instruction blocks and instruction blocks can be committed based on such explicitly-tracked age in some cases. In step 1435, a policy may be applied that includes mapping instruction blocks according to the availability of a suitably sized slot in the instruction window (or a segment of the window). In step 1440, a policy may be applied that includes mapping instruction blocks into the instruction window using a circular buffer.
In some implementations, various combinations of policies may be utilized in order to further enhance processor core efficiency. For example, the control unit may dynamically toggle among policies to apply a policy that provides more optimal operations for a given instruction block or group of instruction blocks. For example, in some scenarios, it may be more efficient to use a circular buffering technique in which instruction blocks are handled in order in a contiguous manner. In other scenarios, out of order and age-based handling may provide more optimal operations.
In step 1520, an instruction block is placed in a suitable segment of the window that maximizes instruction density in the window. For example, if the compiler produces a distribution of block sizes that includes a relatively large number of blocks with low instruction count (e.g., to implement program branching and the like), then the instruction window may have a segment that is specifically sized for small instruction blocks. Similarly, if there is a relatively large number of high instruction count blocks (e.g., for scientific and similar applications), then a segment may be specifically sized for such larger instruction blocks. Thus, the instruction window segment sizing can be adjusted according to a particular size distribution or be dynamically adjusted in some situations when the distribution changes. In block 1525, instruction blocks may be subject to restrictions designated in the instruction block header, as discussed above.
Various exemplary embodiments of the present decoupled processor instruction window and operand buffer are now presented by way of illustration and not as an exhaustive list of all embodiments. An example includes a method for managing instruction blocks in an instruction window disposed in a processor, comprising: mapping an instruction block including one or more decoded instructions from an instruction cache into the instruction window; allocating resources for the instruction block in which the resources include control bits and operands that are associated with each of the one or more decoded instructions in the instruction block; maintaining one or more pointers among the resources and the one or more decoded instructions in the block; refreshing the instruction block without re-fetching the instruction block from the instruction cache; and reusing the resources by following the one or more pointers. In another example, the method further includes performing bulk allocation for each instruction block that is fetched from the instruction cache to obtain resources that are associated with each of the one or more instructions in the instruction block. In another example, the method further includes maintaining operands and control bits in an operand buffer that is decoupled from the instruction window so that resources are pre-validated when an instruction block is refreshed. In another example, the control bits include operand readiness status. In another example, the resources include opcode. In another example, the method further includes utilizing instruction blocks based on a program and refreshing the instruction block when execution of the program is performed using a programmed loop.
A further example includes an instruction block-based microarchitecture, comprising: a control unit; one or more operand buffers; and an instruction window configured to store decoded instruction blocks to be under control of the control unit in which the control includes operations to: map instruction blocks into the instruction window so that a new instruction block replaces a committed instruction block, allocate resources for the new instruction block in which the resources include control bits or operands, and decouple the instruction window from the one or more operand buffers in which blocks of instructions and blocks of operands are managed independently so that resources are pre-validated when an instruction block is refreshed. In another example, the instruction block-based microarchitecture further includes a configuration to map the instruction blocks based on restrictions designated in a header of the instruction block. In another example, the instruction block-based microarchitecture of claim 8 in which the designated restrictions include one of alignment restrictions or instruction block capacity restrictions of the instruction window. In another example, the instruction block-based microarchitecture further includes a configuration to track an order of the instruction blocks in the instruction window and commit instruction blocks out of order. In another example, the instruction block-based microarchitecture further includes an on-chip network that enables a plurality of processor cores to be composed or decomposed. In another example, the instruction block-based microarchitecture further include a configuration to maintain decoupling between a logical instruction window and one or more logical operand buffers when the plurality of processor cores are composed. In another example, the instruction block-based microarchitecture further includes a configuration to maintain decoupling between a logical instruction window and one or more logical operand buffers when the plurality of processor cores are decomposed. In another example, the instruction block-based microarchitecture further includes a configuration to refresh the instruction block without re-fetching the instruction block from an instruction cache.
A further example includes a control unit disposed in a processor that is arranged to perform a method for instruction block management, comprising: maintaining an instruction window for buffering one or more instruction blocks; maintaining one or more operand buffers for buffering resources for the one or more instruction blocks; tracking state using pointers among the instruction blocks and the buffered resources; when refreshing an instruction block, following the pointer to reuse the tracked state. In another example, the control unit further includes clearing control bits and setting a new pointer when committing an instruction block. In another example, the control unit further includes decoupling the instruction window from the one or more operand buffers so that blocks of instructions and blocks of operands are maintained in a non-corresponding basis. In another example, the control unit further includes allocating the buffered resources in bulk so that resources are obtained for all instructions in the instruction block. In another example, the control unit further includes maintaining a logical instruction window that encompasses a plurality of processor cores. In another example, the control unit further includes maintaining a logical operand buffer that encompasses a plurality of processor cores and further decoupling the logical operand buffer from the logical instruction window to enable state to be pre-validated when an instruction block is refreshed without re-fetching.
The subject matter described above is provided by way of illustration only and should not be construed as limiting. Various modifications and changes may be made to the subject matter described herein without following the example embodiments and applications illustrated and described, and without departing from the true spirit and scope of the present disclosure, which is set forth in the following claims.
| Number | Name | Date | Kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| 5142631 | Murray et al. | Aug 1992 | A |
| 5333280 | Ishikawa et al. | Jul 1994 | A |
| 5333283 | Emma et al. | Jul 1994 | A |
| 5363495 | Fry et al. | Nov 1994 | A |
| 5615350 | Hesson et al. | Mar 1997 | A |
| 5790822 | Sheaffer et al. | Aug 1998 | A |
| 5796997 | Lesartre et al. | Aug 1998 | A |
| 5799167 | Lesartre | Aug 1998 | A |
| 5845103 | Sodani et al. | Dec 1998 | A |
| 5903750 | Yeh et al. | May 1999 | A |
| 5933642 | Greenbaum et al. | Aug 1999 | A |
| 5943501 | Burger et al. | Aug 1999 | A |
| 5983337 | Mahalingaiah et al. | Nov 1999 | A |
| 5999737 | Srivastava | Dec 1999 | A |
| 6016399 | Chang | Jan 2000 | A |
| 6044222 | Simons et al. | Mar 2000 | A |
| 6058438 | Diehl et al. | May 2000 | A |
| 6061776 | Burger et al. | May 2000 | A |
| 6112019 | Chamdani et al. | Aug 2000 | A |
| 6161170 | Burger et al. | Dec 2000 | A |
| 6164841 | Mattson et al. | Dec 2000 | A |
| 6167491 | McAlpine | Dec 2000 | A |
| 6185675 | Kranich et al. | Feb 2001 | B1 |
| 6212622 | Witt | Apr 2001 | B1 |
| 6275919 | Johnson | Aug 2001 | B1 |
| 6279101 | Witt et al. | Aug 2001 | B1 |
| 6286135 | Santhanam | Sep 2001 | B1 |
| 6301673 | Foster et al. | Oct 2001 | B1 |
| 6360309 | Iadonato et al. | Mar 2002 | B1 |
| 6453344 | Ellsworth et al. | Sep 2002 | B1 |
| 6493820 | Akkary et al. | Dec 2002 | B2 |
| 6513109 | Gschwind et al. | Jan 2003 | B1 |
| 6523110 | Bright et al. | Feb 2003 | B1 |
| 6529922 | Hoge | Mar 2003 | B1 |
| 6615340 | Wilmot, II | Sep 2003 | B1 |
| 6732260 | Wang et al. | May 2004 | B1 |
| 6779100 | Keltcher et al. | Aug 2004 | B1 |
| 6851043 | Inoue | Feb 2005 | B1 |
| 6877059 | Solomon et al. | Apr 2005 | B2 |
| 6918032 | Abdallah et al. | Jul 2005 | B1 |
| 6934254 | Brown et al. | Aug 2005 | B2 |
| 6934828 | Parthasarathy et al. | Aug 2005 | B2 |
| 6957320 | Senter et al. | Oct 2005 | B2 |
| 6957435 | Armstrong et al. | Oct 2005 | B2 |
| 6965969 | Burger et al. | Nov 2005 | B2 |
| 6988183 | Wong | Jan 2006 | B1 |
| 6993640 | Doing et al. | Jan 2006 | B2 |
| 6996698 | Slegel et al. | Feb 2006 | B2 |
| 7032217 | Wu | Apr 2006 | B2 |
| 7036036 | Vorbach et al. | Apr 2006 | B2 |
| 7051187 | Garg et al. | May 2006 | B2 |
| 7051188 | Kubala et al. | May 2006 | B1 |
| 7069555 | Tzen | Jun 2006 | B1 |
| 7152155 | McIlvaine et al. | Dec 2006 | B2 |
| 7207038 | Bicsak et al. | Apr 2007 | B2 |
| 7210127 | Rangachari | Apr 2007 | B1 |
| 7228402 | Rychlik et al. | Jun 2007 | B2 |
| 7284100 | Slegel et al. | Oct 2007 | B2 |
| 7299458 | Hammes | Nov 2007 | B2 |
| 7308320 | Miyamori | Dec 2007 | B2 |
| 7310722 | Moy et al. | Dec 2007 | B2 |
| 7380038 | Gray | May 2008 | B2 |
| 7392524 | Ault et al. | Jun 2008 | B2 |
| 7453899 | Vaida et al. | Nov 2008 | B1 |
| 7490224 | Abernathy et al. | Feb 2009 | B2 |
| 7526637 | Jung et al. | Apr 2009 | B2 |
| 7571284 | Olson et al. | Aug 2009 | B1 |
| 7587578 | Isobe | Sep 2009 | B2 |
| 7624254 | Smith et al. | Nov 2009 | B2 |
| 7631170 | Dowling | Dec 2009 | B2 |
| 7664940 | Conklin et al. | Feb 2010 | B2 |
| 7676650 | Ukai | Mar 2010 | B2 |
| 7685354 | Hetherington et al. | Mar 2010 | B1 |
| 7720991 | Parent et al. | May 2010 | B1 |
| 7779213 | Ferren et al. | Aug 2010 | B2 |
| 7802073 | Cheng et al. | Sep 2010 | B1 |
| 7805574 | Bell, Jr. et al. | Sep 2010 | B2 |
| 7853777 | Jones et al. | Dec 2010 | B2 |
| 7873776 | Hetherington et al. | Jan 2011 | B2 |
| 7877580 | Eickemeyer et al. | Jan 2011 | B2 |
| 7877586 | Levitan et al. | Jan 2011 | B2 |
| 7917733 | Kazuma | Mar 2011 | B2 |
| 7958396 | Chitsaz et al. | Jun 2011 | B2 |
| 8010953 | Gschwind | Aug 2011 | B2 |
| 8032734 | Svendsen et al. | Oct 2011 | B2 |
| 8055881 | Burger et al. | Nov 2011 | B2 |
| 8055885 | Nakashima | Nov 2011 | B2 |
| 8127119 | Burger et al. | Feb 2012 | B2 |
| 8151092 | Altman et al. | Apr 2012 | B2 |
| 8166282 | Madriles et al. | Apr 2012 | B2 |
| 8180997 | Burger et al. | May 2012 | B2 |
| 8201024 | Burger et al. | Jun 2012 | B2 |
| 8225315 | Cheng et al. | Jul 2012 | B1 |
| 8234635 | Isshiki et al. | Jul 2012 | B2 |
| 8250555 | Lee et al. | Aug 2012 | B1 |
| 8250556 | Lee et al. | Aug 2012 | B1 |
| 8266413 | Hwu et al. | Sep 2012 | B2 |
| 8290994 | Allalouf | Oct 2012 | B2 |
| 8321850 | Bruening et al. | Nov 2012 | B2 |
| 8341639 | Lewis | Dec 2012 | B2 |
| 8380964 | Bishop | Feb 2013 | B2 |
| 8433885 | Burger et al. | Apr 2013 | B2 |
| 8434074 | Janczak et al. | Apr 2013 | B2 |
| 8447911 | Burger et al. | May 2013 | B2 |
| 8464002 | Burger et al. | Jun 2013 | B2 |
| 8464271 | Eichenberger et al. | Jun 2013 | B2 |
| 8473724 | Kenville et al. | Jun 2013 | B1 |
| 8510596 | Gupta et al. | Aug 2013 | B1 |
| 8533436 | Fryman et al. | Sep 2013 | B2 |
| 8555038 | Olson et al. | Oct 2013 | B2 |
| 8589662 | Altman et al. | Nov 2013 | B2 |
| 8589892 | Fournier et al. | Nov 2013 | B2 |
| 8612698 | Lopez et al. | Dec 2013 | B2 |
| 8612726 | Sharawi et al. | Dec 2013 | B2 |
| 8677105 | Abdallah | Mar 2014 | B2 |
| 8756605 | Aingaran et al. | Jun 2014 | B2 |
| 8817793 | Mushano | Aug 2014 | B2 |
| 8909941 | Trimberger | Dec 2014 | B1 |
| 8930678 | Madduri et al. | Jan 2015 | B2 |
| 9021241 | Burger et al. | Apr 2015 | B2 |
| 9043769 | Vorbach | May 2015 | B2 |
| 9053292 | Abdallah | Jun 2015 | B2 |
| 9697002 | Gschwind et al. | Jul 2017 | B2 |
| 9720693 | Burger et al. | Aug 2017 | B2 |
| 9830152 | Kothinti Naresh et al. | Nov 2017 | B2 |
| 9940136 | Burger et al. | Apr 2018 | B2 |
| 9946548 | Burger et al. | Apr 2018 | B2 |
| 9952867 | Burger et al. | Apr 2018 | B2 |
| 20010042173 | Bala et al. | Nov 2001 | A1 |
| 20030004683 | Nemawarkar | Jan 2003 | A1 |
| 20030012225 | Banerjee et al. | Jan 2003 | A1 |
| 20030065835 | Maergner et al. | Apr 2003 | A1 |
| 20030101208 | Chauvel et al. | May 2003 | A1 |
| 20030149862 | Kadambi | Aug 2003 | A1 |
| 20040123078 | Hum et al. | Jun 2004 | A1 |
| 20040139299 | Busaba et al. | Jul 2004 | A1 |
| 20050076194 | Kanapathippillai et al. | Apr 2005 | A1 |
| 20060020769 | Herrell et al. | Jan 2006 | A1 |
| 20060020944 | King et al. | Jan 2006 | A1 |
| 20060031702 | Jardine et al. | Feb 2006 | A1 |
| 20060041875 | Peri et al. | Feb 2006 | A1 |
| 20060075207 | Togawa et al. | Apr 2006 | A1 |
| 20060136915 | Aingaran et al. | Jun 2006 | A1 |
| 20060179196 | Gray | Aug 2006 | A1 |
| 20060242391 | Elwood | Oct 2006 | A1 |
| 20060259739 | Asal et al. | Nov 2006 | A1 |
| 20060259740 | Hahn et al. | Nov 2006 | A1 |
| 20060282624 | Yokota | Dec 2006 | A1 |
| 20070050557 | Ferren et al. | Mar 2007 | A1 |
| 20070055827 | Tsien | Mar 2007 | A1 |
| 20070074011 | Borkar et al. | Mar 2007 | A1 |
| 20070113171 | Behrens et al. | May 2007 | A1 |
| 20070157006 | Jourdan et al. | Jul 2007 | A1 |
| 20070162906 | Chandhoke | Jul 2007 | A1 |
| 20070192540 | Gara et al. | Aug 2007 | A1 |
| 20070239965 | Lewites et al. | Oct 2007 | A1 |
| 20070255980 | Endo et al. | Nov 2007 | A1 |
| 20080046621 | Okino et al. | Feb 2008 | A1 |
| 20080109668 | Atkinson | May 2008 | A1 |
| 20080126750 | Sistla | May 2008 | A1 |
| 20080192050 | Schardt et al. | Aug 2008 | A1 |
| 20080235493 | Fortier | Sep 2008 | A1 |
| 20080235499 | Togawa | Sep 2008 | A1 |
| 20080244506 | Killian et al. | Oct 2008 | A1 |
| 20080250227 | Linderman et al. | Oct 2008 | A1 |
| 20090013135 | Burger et al. | Jan 2009 | A1 |
| 20090013153 | Hilton | Jan 2009 | A1 |
| 20090013160 | Burger et al. | Jan 2009 | A1 |
| 20090138681 | Saha | May 2009 | A1 |
| 20090150657 | Gschwind et al. | Jun 2009 | A1 |
| 20090172365 | Orenstien et al. | Jul 2009 | A1 |
| 20090177843 | Wallach et al. | Jul 2009 | A1 |
| 20090187739 | Nemirovsky et al. | Jul 2009 | A1 |
| 20090228690 | Muff et al. | Sep 2009 | A1 |
| 20090299966 | Schneider | Dec 2009 | A1 |
| 20100070958 | Takagi | Mar 2010 | A1 |
| 20100082947 | Tramm et al. | Apr 2010 | A1 |
| 20100146209 | Burger et al. | Jun 2010 | A1 |
| 20100262807 | Burky et al. | Oct 2010 | A1 |
| 20100325395 | Burger et al. | Dec 2010 | A1 |
| 20110060889 | Burger et al. | Mar 2011 | A1 |
| 20110072239 | Burger et al. | Mar 2011 | A1 |
| 20110078424 | Boehm et al. | Mar 2011 | A1 |
| 20110219222 | Eichenberger et al. | Sep 2011 | A1 |
| 20110238953 | Metsugi et al. | Sep 2011 | A1 |
| 20110252258 | Im et al. | Oct 2011 | A1 |
| 20120017069 | Bourd et al. | Jan 2012 | A1 |
| 20120030451 | Pong et al. | Feb 2012 | A1 |
| 20120079102 | Damodaran et al. | Mar 2012 | A1 |
| 20120079488 | Phillips et al. | Mar 2012 | A1 |
| 20120124345 | Denman et al. | May 2012 | A1 |
| 20120131309 | Johnson et al. | May 2012 | A1 |
| 20120204004 | Dockser et al. | Aug 2012 | A1 |
| 20120216012 | Vorbach et al. | Aug 2012 | A1 |
| 20120246448 | Abdallah | Sep 2012 | A1 |
| 20120246450 | Abdallah | Sep 2012 | A1 |
| 20120303933 | Manet et al. | Nov 2012 | A1 |
| 20120311306 | Mushano | Dec 2012 | A1 |
| 20130024676 | Glew et al. | Jan 2013 | A1 |
| 20130086370 | Burger et al. | Apr 2013 | A1 |
| 20130159628 | Choquette et al. | Jun 2013 | A1 |
| 20130191817 | Vorbach | Jul 2013 | A1 |
| 20130198499 | Dice et al. | Aug 2013 | A1 |
| 20130246682 | Jandhyam | Sep 2013 | A1 |
| 20130339470 | Jeswani et al. | Dec 2013 | A1 |
| 20140033217 | Vajda et al. | Jan 2014 | A1 |
| 20140075144 | Sanders et al. | Mar 2014 | A1 |
| 20140082327 | Ghose | Mar 2014 | A1 |
| 20140095837 | Plotnikov et al. | Apr 2014 | A1 |
| 20140136822 | Suggs et al. | May 2014 | A1 |
| 20140173222 | Alapati et al. | Jun 2014 | A1 |
| 20140173262 | Chheda et al. | Jun 2014 | A1 |
| 20140181475 | Abdallah | Jun 2014 | A1 |
| 20140189287 | Plotnikov et al. | Jul 2014 | A1 |
| 20140195787 | Scalabrino et al. | Jul 2014 | A1 |
| 20140201507 | Jayaseelan et al. | Jul 2014 | A1 |
| 20140281389 | Loktyukhin et al. | Sep 2014 | A1 |
| 20140281402 | Comparan et al. | Sep 2014 | A1 |
| 20140281416 | Abdallah | Sep 2014 | A1 |
| 20140281424 | Bobba et al. | Sep 2014 | A1 |
| 20140281434 | Madriles et al. | Sep 2014 | A1 |
| 20140281435 | Perkins et al. | Sep 2014 | A1 |
| 20140281622 | Wagh et al. | Sep 2014 | A1 |
| 20140282607 | O'Sullivan et al. | Sep 2014 | A1 |
| 20140298336 | Taniuchi | Oct 2014 | A1 |
| 20140317387 | Abdallah | Oct 2014 | A1 |
| 20140331236 | Mitra et al. | Nov 2014 | A1 |
| 20140351524 | Natarajan et al. | Nov 2014 | A1 |
| 20140372736 | Greenhalgh | Dec 2014 | A1 |
| 20140373022 | Chan | Dec 2014 | A1 |
| 20150019921 | Chen et al. | Jan 2015 | A1 |
| 20150067214 | Henry et al. | Mar 2015 | A1 |
| 20150067662 | Palalau | Mar 2015 | A1 |
| 20150074355 | Sampathkumar | Mar 2015 | A1 |
| 20150095628 | Yamada et al. | Apr 2015 | A1 |
| 20150100757 | Burger et al. | Apr 2015 | A1 |
| 20150127928 | Burger et al. | May 2015 | A1 |
| 20150199199 | Burger et al. | Jul 2015 | A1 |
| 20150199272 | Goel et al. | Jul 2015 | A1 |
| 20150347133 | Gschwind et al. | Dec 2015 | A1 |
| 20150347143 | Godard et al. | Dec 2015 | A1 |
| 20160055004 | Grochowski et al. | Feb 2016 | A1 |
| 20160132331 | Godard et al. | May 2016 | A1 |
| 20160179546 | Yamada et al. | Jun 2016 | A1 |
| 20160274915 | Chatha et al. | Sep 2016 | A1 |
| 20160328237 | Di et al. | Nov 2016 | A1 |
| 20160378479 | Burger | Dec 2016 | A1 |
| 20160378483 | Burger et al. | Dec 2016 | A1 |
| 20160378484 | Burger | Dec 2016 | A1 |
| 20160378488 | Burger et al. | Dec 2016 | A1 |
| 20160378491 | Burger et al. | Dec 2016 | A1 |
| 20160378492 | Gray et al. | Dec 2016 | A1 |
| 20160378493 | Burger et al. | Dec 2016 | A1 |
| 20160378494 | Burger et al. | Dec 2016 | A1 |
| 20160378495 | Burger | Dec 2016 | A1 |
| 20160378496 | Gray et al. | Dec 2016 | A1 |
| 20160378499 | Burger et al. | Dec 2016 | A1 |
| 20160378502 | Burger | Dec 2016 | A1 |
| 20160378661 | Gray et al. | Dec 2016 | A1 |
| 20170083340 | Burger et al. | Mar 2017 | A1 |
| 20170083343 | Burger | Mar 2017 | A1 |
| 20170277536 | Kothinti Naresh et al. | Sep 2017 | A1 |
| Number | Date | Country |
|---|---|---|
| 2017003263 | Jun 2018 | CL |
| 2017003264 | Jun 2018 | CL |
| 101344843 | Jan 2009 | CN |
| 102096579 | Jun 2011 | CN |
| 102306094 | Jan 2012 | CN |
| 104310225 | Jan 2015 | CN |
| 0583089 | Feb 1994 | EP |
| 0992894 | Apr 2000 | EP |
| 1039374 | Sep 2000 | EP |
| 1102163 | May 2001 | EP |
| 2527972 | Nov 2012 | EP |
| 0125903 | Apr 2001 | WO |
| 2004001587 | Dec 2003 | WO |
| 2006102664 | Sep 2006 | WO |
| 2009006607 | Jan 2009 | WO |
| 2011031361 | Mar 2011 | WO |
| 2013081556 | Jun 2013 | WO |
| 2013095401 | Jun 2013 | WO |
| 2013095635 | Jun 2013 | WO |
| 2014014216 | Jan 2014 | WO |
| 2014193878 | Dec 2014 | WO |
| 2015069583 | May 2015 | WO |
| 2016210026 | Dec 2016 | WO |
| 2016210031 | Dec 2016 | WO |
| Entry |
|---|
| “International Preliminary Report on Patentability Issued in PCT Patent Application No. PCT/US2014/039654”, Mailed Date: Aug. 17, 2015, 11 Pages total. |
| Sankaralingam, et al., “Distributed Microarchitectural Protocols in the TRIPS Prototype Processor”, In Proceedings of 39th Annual IEEE/ACM International Symposium on Microarchitecture, Dec. 9, 2006, (12 pages total). |
| Putnam, et al., “Dynamic Vectorization in the E2 Dynamic Multicore Architecture”, In Proceedings of ACM SIGARCH Computer Architecture News, vol. 38, Issue 4, Sep. 2010, (6 pages total). |
| “TRIPS (The Tera-op, Reliable, Intelligently adaptive Processing System)”, Published on: Oct. 29, 2005 Available at: http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/cart/trips/ (1 page total). |
| Smith, et al., “Compiling for EDGE Architectures”, In Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on Code Generation and Optimization, Mar. 26, 2006, (11 pages total). |
| Smith, Aaron, “Explicit Data Graph Compilation”, In PhD Thesis, Dec. 2009, (1 page total). |
| Gebhart, et al., “An Evaluation of the TRIPS Computer System”, In Proceedings of the 14th international conference on Architectural support for programming languages and operating systems, Mar. 7, 2009, (2 pages total). |
| Burger, et al., “Scaling to the End of Silicon with EDGE Architectures”, In Proceedings of Computer, vol. 37, Issue 7, Jul. 2004, pp. 44-55 (12 pages total). |
| Sankaralingam, et al., “TRIPS: A Polymorphous Architecture for Exploiting ILP, TLP, and DLP”, In Proceedings of ACM Transactions on Architecture and Code Optimization, vol. 1, Issue 1, Mar. 2004, pp. 62-93. (32 pages total). |
| Jones, et al., “A Comparison of Data Prefetching on an Access Decoupled and Superscalar Machine”, In Proceedings of Thirtieth Annual IEEE/ACM International Symposium on Microarchitecture, Dec. 1, 1997, (6 pages total). |
| Pericas, et al., “A Decoupled KILO—Instruction Processor”, In Proceedings of the Twelfth International Symposium on High-Performance Computer Architecture, Feb. 11, 2006, (12 pages total). |
| Melvin, et al., “Enhancing Instruction Scheduling with a Block-Structured ISA”, In International Journal of Parallel Programming, vol. 23, No. 3, Jun. 1, 1995, pp. 221-243 (23 pages total). |
| Reinmany, et al., “Optimizations Enabled by a Decoupled Front-End Architecture”, In Proceedings of IEEE Transactions on computers, vol. 50 Issue 4, Apr. 1, 2001, (32 pages total). |
| Nagarajan ey al., “Static Placement, Dynamic Issue (SPDI) Scheduling for EDGE Architectures”, In Proceedings of 13th International Conference on Parallel Architecture and Compilation Techniques, Sep. 29, 2004, (11 pages total). |
| Duric, et al., “EVX: Vector Execution on Low Power EDGE Cores”, In Proceedings of the Conference on Design, Automation & Test in Europe Conference and Exhibition, Mar. 24, 2014, (4 pages total). |
| Pengfei, et al., “M5 Based EDGE Architecture Modeling”, In Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Computer Design, Oct. 3, 2010, (8 pages total). |
| Duric, et al., “Dynamic-vector Execution on a General Purpose EDGE Chip Multiprocessor”, In International Conference on Embedded Computer Systems: Architectures, Modeling, and Simulation, Jul. 17, 2014, (8 pages total). |
| Junier, et al., “Impact of Instruction Cache Replacement Policy on the Tightness of WCET Estimation”, In Proceedings of the 2nd Junior Researcher Workshop on Real-Time Computing, in Conjunction to RTNS, Oct. 16, 2008, (4 pages total). |
| Wilhelm, Reinhard, “Determining Bounds on Execution Times”, In Proceedings of Embedded Systems Design and Verification—vol. 1 of the Embedded Systems Handbook, Apr. 7, 2015, (33 pages total). |
| Gupta, et al., “Erasing Core Boundaries for Robust and Configurable Performance”, In Proceedings of 43rd Annual IEEE/ACM International Symposium on Microarchitecture, Dec. 4, 2010, (12 pages total). |
| Kim, et al., “Composable Lightweight Processors”, In 40th Annual IEEE/ACM International Symposium on Microarchitecture, Dec. 1, 2007, (13 pages total). |
| Govindaraju, et al., “DySER: Unifying Functionality and Parallelism Specialization for Energy-Efficient Computing”, In IEEE Micro, vol. 32, Issue 5, Sep. 2012, (14 pages total). |
| Kocabas, et al., “Enhancing an Embedded Processor Core with a Cryptographic Unit for Performance and Security”, In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Reconfigurable Computing and FPGAs, Dec. 3, 2008, (6 pages total). |
| Essen, et al., “Energy-Efficient Specialization of Functional Units in a Coarse-Grained Reconfigurable Array”, In Proceedings of the 19th ACM/SIGDA International Symposium on Field Programmable Gate Arrays, Feb. 27, 2011, (4 pages total). |
| Benson, et al., “Design, Integration and Implementation of the DySER Hardware Accelerator”, In IEEE 18th International Symposium on High Performance Computer Architecture, Feb. 25, 2012, (12 pages total). |
| “International Search Report & Written Opinion for PCT Patent Application No. PCT/US2014/039654”, Mailed Date: Aug. 26, 2014, (13 pages total). |
| Park, et al., “Polymorphic Pipeline Array: A Flexible Multicore Accelerator with Virtualized Execution for Mobile Multimedia Applications”, In Proceedings of the 42nd Annual IEEE/ACM International Symposium on Microarchitecture, Dec. 12, 2009, pp. 370-380. (11 pages total). |
| Bouwens, et al., “Architecture Enhancements for the ADRES Coarse-Grained Reconfigurable Array”, In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on High Performance Embedded Architectures and Compilers, Jan. 27, 2008, pp. 66-81. (16 pages total). |
| Duric, et al., “ReCompac: Reconfigurable Compute Accelerator”, In Proceedings of the International Conference on Reconfigurable Computing and FPGAs, Dec. 9, 2013, (4 pages total). |
| “Second Written Opinion Issued in PCT Patent Application No. PCT/US2014/039654”, Mailed Date: Mar. 3, 2015, (7 Pages total). |
| Mei, et al., “ADRES: An Architecture with Tightly Coupled VLIW Processor and Coarse-Grained Reconfigurable Matrix”, In Proceedings of 13th International Conference on Field-Programmable Logic and Applications, Sep. 2003, pp. 61-70 (10 pages total). |
| Bakhoda, et al., “Microsoft Research—E2”, Published on: Mar. 23, 2015 Available at: http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/projects/e2/ (2 pages total). |
| Budiu, et al., “Optimizing Memory Accesses for Spatial Computation”, In Proceedings of First International Symposium on Code Generation and Optimization, Mar. 23, 2003, (13 pages total). |
| Saravana, at al., “TRIPS: A Distributed Explicit Data Graph Execution (EDGE) Microprocessor”, In Proceedings of IEEE HotChips Symposium on High-Performance Chips, Aug. 2007, (13 pages total). |
| Maher, et al., “The Good Block: Hardware/Software Design for Composable, Block-Atomic Processors”, In Proceedings of the 15th Workshop on Interaction between Compilers and Computer Architectures, Feb. 12, 2011, (8 pages total). |
| “Control Flow Graphs and Loop Optimization”, Published on: Nov. 7, 2014, Available at: https://engineering.purdue.edu/˜milind/ece468/2014fall/lecture-09.pdf (38 pages total). |
| Smith, Aaron Lee, “Explicit Data Graph Compilation”, In Doctoral Dissertation, Dec. 2009, (3 pages total). |
| Budiu, et al., “Pegasus: An Efficient Intermediate Representation”, In Technical Report, Apr. 2002, (20 pages total). |
| Xue, et al., “Partial Dead Code Elimination on Predicated Code Regions”, In Journal of Software—Practice & Experience, vol. 36, No. 15, Dec. 2006, (32 pages total). |
| Nethercote, et al., “Self-Evaluating Compilation Applied to Loop Unrolling”, In Technical Report TR-06, Feb. 2006, (17 pages total). |
| Coons et al., “A Spatial Path Scheduling Algorithm for EDGE Architectures,” In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Architectural Support for Programming Languages and Operating Systems (ASPLOS), Oct. 12, 2006, (12 pages total). |
| Desikan et al., “Scalable Selective Re-Execution for EDGE Architectures,” In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Architectural Support for Programming Languages and Operating Systems, Oct. 9, 2004, (13 pages total). |
| Govindan et al., “Scaling Power and Performance via Processor Composability,” IEEE Transaction on Computeres, No. 1, Aug. 2014, (14 pages total). |
| Gulati et al., “Multitasking Workload Scheduling on Flexible Core Chip Multiprocessors,” In Proceedings of the Computer Architecture News, vol. 36, Issue 2, May 2008, (10 pages total). |
| Keckler et al., “Tera-Op Reliable Intelligently Adaptive System (Trips),” In AFRL-IF-WP-TR-2004-1514, document dated Apr. 2004, (29 Pages total). |
| Microsoft Research, “E2,” document downloaded on Apr. 10, 2015 from http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/projects/e2/ (2 pages total). |
| Robatmili et al., “How to Implement Effective Prediction and Forwarding for Fusable Dynamic Multicore Architectures,” In Proceedings of the 19th IEEE International Symposium on High-Performance Computer Architecture, Feb. 23, 2013, (21 pages total). |
| Sankaralingam et al., “Exploiting ILP, TLP, and DLP with Polymorphous TRIPS Architecture,” In Proceedings of the 30th Annual International Symposium on Computer Architecture, Jun. 9, 2003, (12 pages total). |
| Smith et al., “Compiling for EDGE Architectures,” In Proceedings of International Symposium on Code Generation and Optimization, Mar. 26, 2006, (11 pages total). |
| Smith, “TRIPS Application Binary Interface (ABI) Manual,” Technical Report TR-05-22, Department of Computer Sciences, The University of Texas at Austin, Technical Report TR-05-22, document marked Oct. 10, 2006, (16 pages total). |
| “International Search Report and Written Opinion Issued in PCT Application No. PCT/US2016/038849”, Mailed Date: Sep. 30, 2016, (15 Pages total). |
| “International Search Report and Written Opinion Issued in PCT Application No. PCT/US2016/038851”, Mailed Date: Sep. 27, 2016, 11 Pages. |
| “International Search Report and Written Opinion Issued in PCT Application No. PCT/US2016/038852”, Mailed Date: Sep. 23, 2016, (14 Pages total). |
| “International Search Report and Written Opinion Issued in PCT Application No. PCT/US2016/038850”, Mailed Date: Sep. 22, 2016, (12 Pages total). |
| Behnam Robatmili, et al., “Strategies for Mapping Dataflow Blocks to Distributed Hardware”, In the proceedings of the 41st IEEE/ACM International Symposium on Microarchitecture, Nov. 8, 2008, (12 Pages total). |
| Kane, Gerry, “PA-RISC 2.0 Architecture”, In Publication of Prentice Hall PTR, Jan. 1, 1996, 28 Pages. |
| Kinsy, et al., “Heracles: A Tool for Fast RTL-Based Design Space Exploration of Multicore Processors”, In Proceedings of the ACM/SIGDA International Symposium on Field Programmable Gate Arrays, Feb. 11, 2013, pp. 125-134. |
| Kozumplik, et al., “TRIPS to the Semantic EDGE”, Retrieved From <<https://web.archive.org/web/20150921054006/http://vbn.aau.dk/ws/files/61072300/1212050422_pdf>>, Sep. 22, 2015, 28 Pages. |
| Li, et al., “Compiler-Assisted Hybrid Operand Communication”, In Technical Report TR-09-33, The University of Texas at Austin, Nov. 1, 2009, 12 Pages. |
| Li, et al., “Hybrid Operand Communication for Dataflow Processors”, In Workshop on Parallel Execution of Sequential Programs on Multi-core Architectures, Jun. 21, 2009, pp. 61-71. |
| Maher, et al., “Merging Head and Tail Duplication for Convergent Hyperblock Formation”, In Proceedings of the 39th Annual IEEE/ACM International Symposium on Microarchitecture, Dec. 9, 2006, 12 Pages. |
| McDonald, et al., “Characterization of TCC on Chip-Multiprocessors”, In 14th International Conference on Parallel Architectures and Compilation Techniques, Sep. 17, 2005, 12 Pages. |
| Munshi, et al., “A Parameterizable SIMD Stream Processor”, In Proceedings of Canadian Conference on Electrical and Computer Engineering, May 1, 2005, pp. 806-811. |
| Muraoka, et al., “VCore-based Design Methodology”, In Proceedings of the Asia and South Pacific Design Automation Conference, Jan. 21, 2003, pp. 441-445. |
| Nagarajan, et al., “A Design Space Evaluation of Grid Processor Architectures”, In Proceedings of the 34th Annual ACM/IEEE International Symposium on Microarchitecture, Dec. 1, 2001, pp. 40-51. |
| Nagarajan, et al., “Critical Path Analysis of the TRIPS Architecture”, In IEEE International Symposium on Performance Analysis of Systems and Software, Mar. 19, 2006, 11 Pages. |
| Park, et al., “Reducing Design Complexity of the Load/Store Queue”, In Proceedings of the 36th annual IEEE/ACM International Symposium on Microarchitecture, Dec. 3, 2003, 12 Pages. |
| “International Search Report and Written Opinion Issued in PCT Application No. PCT/US2016/038842”, dated Oct. 6, 2016, 11 Pages. |
| “International Search Report and Written Opinion Issued in PCT Application No. PCT/US2016/038843”, dated Oct. 10, 2016, 11 Pages. |
| “International Search Report and Written Opinion Issued in PCT Application No. PCT/US2016/038845”, dated Sep. 30, 2016, 14 Pages. |
| “International Search Report and Written Opinion Issued in PCT Application No. PCT/US2016/038847”, dated Nov. 9, 2016, 10 Pages. |
| “International Search Report and Written Opinion Issued in PCT Application No. PCT/US2016/038848”, dated Oct. 5, 2016, 11 Pages. |
| “International Search Report and Written Opinion Issued in PCT Application No. PCT/US2016/038853”, dated Sep. 22, 2016, 15 Pages. |
| “Second Written Opinion Issued in PCT Application No. PCT/US2016/038853”, dated May 24, 2017, 6 Pages. |
| “International Search Report and Written Opinion Issued in PCT Application No. PCT/US2016/038854”, dated Sep. 22, 2016, 13 Pages. |
| “International Search Report and Written Opinion Issued in PCT Application No. PCT/US2016/038855”, dated Sep. 27, 2016, 13 Pages. |
| “Second Written Opinion Issued in PCT Application No. PCT/US2016/038855”, dated May 18, 2017, 8 Pages. |
| “International Search Report and Written Opinion Issued in PCT Application No. PCT/US2016/051209”, dated Dec. 16, 2016, 10 Pages. |
| “International Search Report and Written Opinion Issued in PCT Application No. PCT/US2016/051413”, dated Jan. 2, 2017, 16 Pages. |
| “International Search Report and Written Opinion Issued in PCT Application No. PCT/US2016/051417”, dated Dec. 15, 2016, 10 Pages. |
| Pericas, et al., “A Two-Level Load/Store Queue Based on Execution Locality”, In Proceedings of 35th International Symposium on Computer Architecture, Jun. 21, 2008, 12 Pages. |
| Pierce, et al., “Wrong-Path Instruction Prefetching”, In Proceedings of the 29th Annual IEEE/ACM International Symposium on Microarchitecture, Dec. 2, 1996, 17 Pages. |
| Pricopi, et al., “Bahurupi: A Polymorphic Heterogeneous Multi-Core Architecture.”, in the ACM Transactions on Architecture and Code Optimization , vol. 8, Issue 4, Jan. 1, 2012, pp. 1-22. |
| Rahman, Rezaur, “Intel® Xeon Phi™ Core Micro-Architecture”, Retrieved from <<https://software.intel.com/en-us/articles/intel-xeon-phi-core-micro-architecture>>, May 31, 2013, 28 Pages. |
| Robatmili, et al., “Exploiting Criticality to Reduce Bottlenecks in Distributed Uniprocessors”, In Proceedings of 17th IEEE International Symposium on High-Performance Computer Architecture, Feb. 2011, 12 Pages. |
| Roesner, Franziska, “Counting Dependence Predictors”, In Undergraduate Honors Thesis, May 2, 2008, 25 Pages. |
| Sarkar, et al., “Understanding POWER Multiprocessors”, In Proceedings of the 32nd ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation, Jun. 4, 2011, pp. 175-186. |
| Sethumadhavan, et al., “Design and Implementation of the TRIPS Primary Memory System”, In Proceedings of International Conference on Computer Design, ICCD, Oct. 1, 2006, 7 Pages. |
| Sethumadhavan, et al., “Late-Binding: Enabling Unordered Load-Store Queues”, In Proceedings of the 34th Annual International Symposium on Computer Architecture, Jun. 9, 2007, pp. 347-357. |
| Smith, et al., “Dataflow Predication”, In Proceedings of the 39th Annual IEEE/ACM International Symposium on Microarchitecture, Dec. 9, 2006, 12 Pages. |
| Sohi, et al., “Multiscalar Processors”, In Proceedings of 22nd Annual International Symposium on Computer Architecture, Jun. 22, 1995, 12 Pages. |
| Sohi, Gurindar, “Retrospective: Multiscalar Processors”, In Proceedings of the 25th Annual International Symposium on Computer Architectures, Jun. 27, 1998, pp. 1111-1114. |
| Souza, et al., “Dynamically Scheduling VLIW Instructions”, In Journal of Parallel and Distributed Computing, vol. 60, Jul. 2000, pp. 1480-1511. |
| Wong, et al., “Efficient Methods for Out-of-Order Load/Store Execution for High- Performance soft Processors”, In Proceedings of International Conference on Field-Programmable Technology, Dec. 9, 2013, pp. 442-445. |
| Wu, et al., “Block Based Fetch Engine for Superscalar Processors”, In Proceedingsof the 15th International Conference on Computer Applications in Industry and Engineering, Nov. 7, 2002, 4 Pages. |
| Zmily, et al., “Block-Aware Instruction Set Architecture”, In Proceedings of ACM Transactions on Architecture and Code Optimization, vol. 3, Issue 3, Sep. 2006, pp. 327-357. |
| Uhrig, et al., Department of Computer Science, University of Augsburg “The Two-dimensional Superscalar GAP Processor Architecture”, International Journal on Advances in Systems and Measurements, vol. 3 No. 1 & 2, pp. 71-81, 2010 (11 pages total). |
| Govindan, et al., “TRIPS: A Distributed Explicit Data Graph Execution (EDGE) Microprocessor”, In Proceedings of IEEE Hot Chips 19 Symposium, Aug. 19, 2007, 13 Pages. |
| Zmily, et al., “Improving Instruction Delivery with a Block-Aware ISA”, In Proceedings of 11th International Euro-Par Conference on Parallel Processing, Aug. 30, 2005, pp. 530-539. |
| Maher, Bertrand Allen., “Atomic Block Formation for Explicit Data Graph Execution Architectures”, The Dissertation Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of The University of Texas at Austin in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy, Aug. 2010, 185 Pages. |
| “Cash: A C to Layout Compiler”, Retrieved from <<http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/academic/class/15745-s07/www/papers/cash-journal.pdf>>, Retrieved on: Apr. 8, 2015, 29 Pages. |
| Li, et al., “Code Layout Optimization for Defensiveness and Politeness in Shared Cache”, In 43rd International Conference on Parallel Processing, Sep. 9, 2014, 11 Pages. |
| Huang, et al., “Compiler-Assisted Sub-Block Reuse”, In Technical Report No. ARCTiC 00-03, Laboratory for Advanced Research in Computing Technology and Compilers, May 2000, 21 Pages. |
| Gray, et al., “Towards an Area-Efficient Implementation of a High ILP EDGE Soft Processor: Comparing Out-of-Order Dataflow Instruction Scheduler Designs”, In Proceedings of the 2014 22nd IEEE Symposium on Field Programmable Custom Computing Machines, May 11, 2014, 1 Page. |
| Robatmili, et al., “Strategies for Mapping Dataflow Blocks To Distributed Hardware”, In the Proceedings of the 41st IEEE/ACM International Symposium on Microarchitecture, Nov. 8, 2008, pp 23-34. |
| “Control Flow Graphs and Loop Optimization”, Retrieved from <<https://engineering.purdue.edu/˜milind/ece468/2014fall/lecture-09.pdf>>, Nov. 7, 2014, 38 Pages. |
| Nagarajan, et al., “Static Placement, Dynamic Issue (SPDI) Scheduling for EDGE Architectures”, In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Parallel Architectures and Compilation Techniques, Sep. 29, 2004, 11 Pages. |
| Sibi, et al., “Scaling Power and Performance via Processor Composability”, In Technical Report No. TR-10-14, Department of Computer Sciences, 2010, 20 Pages. |
| Reinman, et al., “Optimizations Enabled by a Decoupled Front-End Architecture”, In Proceedings of IEEE Transactions on computers, vol. 50, Issue 4, Apr. 1, 2001, 32 Pages. |
| Tamches, et al., “Dynamic Kernel Code Optimization”, In Proceedings of the 3rd Workshop on Binary Translation, Jun. 2001, 10 Pages. |
| Bakhoda, et al., “Microsoft Research- E2”, Retrieved from <<https://web.archive.org/web/20150425065120/https://research.microsoft.com/en-us/projects/e2/>>, Apr. 10, 2015, 2 Pages. |
| Govindaraju, et al., “DySER: Unifying Functionality and Parallelism Specialization for Energy-Efficient Computing”, In IEEE Micro, vol. 32, Issue 5, Sep. 2012, pp. 38-51. |
| “Loop-Invariant Code Motion with Unsafe Operations”, Retrieved from <<https://web.archive.org/web/20150927030042/https://cs.stackexchange.com/questions/28054/loop-invariant-code-motion-with-unsafe-operations>>, Retrieved Date: Apr. 8, 2015, 4 Pages. |
| Cooper, et al., “Loop Invariant Code Motion- Classical Approaches”, Retrieved from <<http://booksite.elsevier.com/9780120884780/Graduate_Lecture_Slides/Optimizations/23CM-Classic.ppt, Retrieved on: Apr. 8, 2015, 19 Pages. |
| “Explicit Data Graph Execution”, Retrieved From <<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explicit_Data_Graph_Execution>>, Retrieved Date: Jun. 13, 2017, 5 Pages. |
| “How Many Clock Cycles does a RISCICISC Instruction Take to Execute?”, Retrieved from <<http://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/170551/how-many-clock -cycles-does-a-risc-cisc-instruction-take-to-execute>>, Retrieved Date: Aug. 24, 2015, 5 Pages. |
| “Intel® 64 Architecture Processor Topology Enumeration”, In White Paper of Intel, Dec. 13, 2013, pp. 1-29. |
| “Load/store architecture”, Retrieved From <<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Load/store_architecture>>, Retrieved Date: Sep. 24, 2015, 1 Page. |
| Bush, Jeff, “Microarchitecture”, Retrieved form <<https://github.com/jbush001/NyuziProcessor/wiki/ Microarchitecture>>, Retrieved Date: Aug. 24, 2015, 7 Pages. |
| “Programmatic API for Building Resources”, Retrieved From <<https://web.archive.org/web/20150706082232/https://jersey.java.net/nonav/documentation/2.0/resource-builder.html>>, Nov. 3, 2014, 3 Pages. |
| “Final Office Action Issued in U.S. Appl. No. 14/252,101”, dated Jan. 12, 2017, 18 Pages. |
| “Non-Final Office Action Issued in U.S Appl. No. 14/252,101”, dated Jul. 7, 2016, 18 Pages. |
| “Non-Final Office Action Issued in U.S Appl. No. 14/752,356”, dated Mar. 21, 2017, 22 Pages. |
| “Non Final Office Action Issued in U.S Appl. No. 14/752,418”, dated May 18, 2017, 20 Pages. |
| “Non-Final Office Action Issued in U.S Appl. No. 14/752,596”, dated May 10, 2017, 22 Pages. |
| “Non Final Office Action Issued in U.S. Appl. No. 14/752,636”, dated Apr. 14, 2017, 15 pages. |
| “Non Final Office Action Issued in U.S. Appl. No. 14/752,660”, dated Apr. 6, 2017, 22 Pages. |
| “Non-Final Office Action Issued in U.S. Appl. No. 14/752,682”, dated May 5, 2017, 10 Pages. |
| “Notice of Allowance Issued in U.S. Appl. No. 14/752,724”, dated May 15, 2017, 15 Pages. |
| “Non-Final Office Action Issued in U.S. Appl. No. 14/752,727”, dated Apr. 14, 2017, 11 Pages. |
| “Notice of Allowance Issued in U.S. Appl. No. 14/752,747”, dated May 11, 2017, 14 Pages. |
| “Notice of Allowance Issued in U.S. Appl. No. 14/752,768”, dated Apr. 28, 2017, 10 Pages. |
| “Non-Final Office Action Issued in U.S. Appl. No. 14/752,792”, dated Apr. 11, 2017, 12 Pages. |
| “Non-Final Office Action Issued in U.S. Appl. No. 14/752,797”, dated Apr. 18, 2017, 10 Pages. |
| AASARAAI, et al., “Design Space Exploration of Instruction Schedulers for Out-of-Order Soft Processors”, In Proceedings of the International Conference on Field Programmable Technology, Dec. 8, 2010, 4 Pages. |
| Abraham, et al., “Predictability of Load/Store Instruction Latencies”, In Proceedings of the 26th Annual International Symposium on Microarchitecture, Dec. 1, 1993, pp. 139-152. |
| Appelbe, et al., “Hoisting Branch Conditions- Improving Super-Scalar Processor Performance”, In Proceedings of the 8th International Workshop on Languages and Compilers for Parallel Computing, Aug. 10, 1995, 14 Pages. |
| August, et al., “Architectural Support for Compiler-Synthesized Dynamic Branch Prediction Strategies: Rationale and Initial Results”, In Proceedings of Third International Symposium on High-Performance Computer Architecture, Feb. 1, 1997, pp. 84-93. |
| Burger, et al., “Design and Implementation of the TRIPS EDGE Architecture”, Retrieved From <<https://www.cs.utexas.edu/˜trips/talks/trips_tutorial_6up.pdf>>, Jun. 4, 2005, 41 Pages. |
| Bush, et al., “Evaluation and Optimization of Signal Processing Kernels on the TRIPS Architecture”, In Proceedings of 4th Annual Workshop on Optimizations for DSP and Embedded Systems, Mar. 2006, 10 Pages. |
| Cain, et al., “Memory Ordering: A Value-Based Approach”, In Journal of IEEE Computer Society, vol. 24, Issue 1, Nov. 2004, pp. 110-117. |
| Carli, Roberto, “Flexible MIPS Soft Processor Architecture”, In Technical Report of Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Jun. 16, 2008, pp. 1-49. |
| Chang, et al., “Cooperative Caching for Chip Multiprocessors”, In Proceedings of the 33rd annual international symposium on Computer Architecture, Jun. 17, 2006, 12 Pages. |
| Cheah, et al., “Analysis and Optimization of a Deeply Pipelined FPGA Soft Processor”, In Proceedings of International Conference on Field-Programmable Technology, Dec. 10, 2014, 4 Pages. |
| Chiu, et al., “Hyperscalar: A Novel Dynamically Reconfigurable Multi-core Architecture”, In Proceedings of 39th International Conference on Parallel Processing, Sep. 13, 2010, 10 Pages. |
| Chrysos, et al., “Memory Dependence Prediction using Store Sets”, In Proceedings of the 25th Annual International Symposium on Computer Architecture, Jun. 1998, pp. 142-153. |
| Coons, et al., “Feature Selection for Instruction Placement in an EDGE Architecture”, Retrieved From <<https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/4c38/8fbe53827627c21a9d2a650395ed4470e544.pdf>>, Mar. 17, 2007, 6 Pages. |
| Duong, et al., “Compiler-Assisted, Selective Out-of-Order Commit”, In Journal of IEEE Computer Architecture Letters, vol. 12, Issue 1, Jan. 2013, 4 Pages. |
| Fallin, et al., “The Heterogeneous Block Architecture”, In Proceedings of 32nd IEEE International Conference on Computer Design, Oct. 19, 2014, 8 Pages. |
| Gaudlot, et al., “The Sisal Model of Functional Programming and its Implementation”, In Proceedings of Second Aizu International Symposium on Parallel Algorithms/Architectures Synthesis, Mar. 17, 1997, 12 Pages. |
| Gupta, Anshuman, “Design Decisions for Tiled Architecture Memory Systems”, Retrieved from <<https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/9100/c6bbb1f56997b8cad6c1661ee1ce1aa90ee5.pdf>>, Sep. 18, 2009, 14 Pages. |
| Hammond, et al., “Programming with Transactional Coherence and Consistency (TCC)”, In ACM SIGOPS Operating Systems Review, vol. 38, Issue 5, Oct. 7, 2004, 13 Pages. |
| Hammond, et al., “Transactional Coherence and Consistency: Simplifying Parallel Hardware and Software”, In IEEE Computer Society, vol. 24, Issue 6, Nov. 2004, pp. 92-103. |
| Hammond, et al., “Transactional Memory Coherence and Consistency”, In IEEE Computer Society of SIGARCH Computer Architecture News, vol. 32, Issue 2, Jun. 19, 2004, 12 Pages. |
| Hao, et al., “Increasing the Instruction Fetch Rate via Block-Structured Instruction Set Architectures”, In Proceedings of the 29th Annual IEEE/ACM International Symposium on Microarchitecture, Dec. 2, 1996, pp 191-200. |
| Hayes, et al., “Unified On-chip Memory Allocation for SIMT Architecture”, In Proceedings of the 28th ACM International Conference on Supercomputing, Jun. 10, 2014, pp. 293-302. |
| Hruska, Joel, “VISC CPU ‘virtual core’ design emerges: Could this be the conceptual computing breakthrough we've been waiting for?”, Retrieved From <<https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/192858-visc-cpu-virtual-core-design-emerges-could-this-be-the-conceptual-breakthrough-weve-been-waiting-for>>, Oct. 24, 2014, 9 Pages. |
| Ipek, et al., “Core Fusion: Accommodating Software Diversity in Chip Multiprocessors”, In Proceedings of the 34th Annual International Symposium on Computer Architecture, Jun. 9, 2007, 12 Pages. |
| Jhala, Ranjit, “Compiler Construction 22nd International Conference”, In Proceedings of 22nd International Conference Conferences on Theory and Practice of Software, Mar. 16, 2013, 11 Pages. |
| Kamaraj, et al., “Design of Out-Of-Order Superscalar Processor with Speculative Thread Level Parallelism”, In Proceedings of International Conference on Innovations in Engineering and Technology, Mar. 21, 2014, pp. 1473-1478. |
| Kavi, et al., “Concurrency, Synchronization, Speculation- the Dataflow Way”, In Journal of Advances in Computers, vol. 96, Nov. 23, 2013, 41 Pages. All pages. |
| Liu, Haiming, “Hardware Techniques to Improve Cache Efficiency”, In Dissertation of the University of Texas at Austin, May 2009 (Only month and year available), 189 Pages. All pages. |
| McDonald, et al., “TRIPS Processor Reference Manual”, In Technical Report TR-05-19, The University of Texas at Austin, Mar. 10, 2005, 194 Pages. All pages. |
| Pickett, Christopher John Francis,“Software Method Level Speculation for Java”, In Thesis Submitted to Mcgill University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirement of the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy, Apr. 2012 (Only month and year available), 236 Pages. All pages. |
| Sankaralingam, Karthikeyan, “Polymorphous Architectures: A Unified Approach for Extracting Concurrency of Different Granularities”, In Doctoral Dissertation of Philosophy, Aug. 2007 (Only month and year available), 276 Pages. All pages. |
| Uhlig, Richard Albert., “Trap-driven Memory Simulation”, In Doctoral Dissertation of Ph.D., Aug. 1995 (Only month and year available), 203 Pages. All pages. |
| Valentine, Bob, “Introducing Sandy Bridge”, Retrieved from <<https://cesga.es/en/paginas/descargaDocumento/d/135>>, Retrieved Date: Aug. 24, 2015, 54 Pages. All pages. |
| ZMily, Darweesh, Ahmad, “Block-Aware Instruction Set Architecture”, In Doctoral Dissertation, Jun. 2007 (Only month and year available), 176 Pages. All pages. |
| Smith, Aaron Lee, “Explicit Data Graph Compilation”, In Dissertations in Doctor of Philosophy, Dec. 2009 (Only month and year available), (201 pages total) All pages. |
| Nagarajan, Ramadass, “Design and Evaluation of a Technology-Scalable Architecture for Instruction-Level Parallelism”, The Dissertation Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of The University of Texas at Austin in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy, May 2007 (Only month and year available), 260 Pages. All pages. |
| Dittmann, Gero, “On Instruction-Set Generation for Specialized Processors”, A Dissertation Submitted to the Swiss Federal Institute Of Technology Zurich for the Degree of Doctor of Technical Sciences, 2005 (No date available), 122 Pages. All pages. |
| Robatmili, Behnam, “Efficient Execution of Sequential Applications on Multicore systems”, The Dissertation Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of the University of Texas at Austin in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of the Doctor of Philosophy, Aug. 2011 (Only month and year available), 198 Pages. All pages. |
| Peon, et al., “HPACK- Header Compression for HTTP/2”, In HTTPbis Working Group, Internet-Draft, Intended status: Standards Track, Jul. 31, 2014, 114 Pages. All pages. |
| Huang, Jian, “Improving Processor Performance Through Compiler-Assisted Block Reuse”, A Dissertation Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy, May 2000 (Only month and year available), 125 Pages. All pages. |
| Anderson, Michael, “A Framework for Composing High-Performance OpenCL from Python Descriptions”, In Technical Report of UCB/EECS-2014-210, Dec. 5, 2014, 144 Pages. All pages. |
| Choudhury, A.N.M Imroz., “Visualizing Program Memory Behavior Using Memory Reference Traces”, in Ph.D. Thesis of University of Utah, Aug. 2012 (Only month and year available), 158 Pages. All pages. |
| Gonzalez, et al., “Dependence Speculative Multithreaded Architecture”, In Technical Report, 1998 (No date available), 22 Pages. All pages. |
| Govindan, Madhu Sarava,“E3:Energy-Efficient EDGE Architectures”, In Dissertation Presented to the Faculty of Graduate School of the university of Texas in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of doctor of Philosophy, Aug. 2010 (Only month and year available), 244 Pages. All pages. |
| “Office Action Issued in European Patent Application No. 16734129.6”, dated Dec. 14, 2018, 6 Pages. |
| “Final Office Action Issued in U.S. Appl. No. 14/752,636”, dated Dec. 7, 2018, 18 Pages. |
| “Non Final Office Action Issued in U.S. Appl. No. 14/752,636”, dated Aug. 2, 2018, 17 Pages. |
| “Office Action Issued in Colombian Patent Application No. NC2017/0013272”, dated Dec. 4, 2018, 20 Pages. |
| “Final Office Action Issued in U.S. Appl. No. 14/752,356”, dated Oct. 23, 2017, 21 Pages. |
| “Final Office Action Issued in U.S. Appl. No. 14/752,636”, dated Nov. 13, 2017, 18 Pages. |
| “Final Office Action Issued in U.S. Appl. No. 14/752,682”, dated Sep. 8, 2017, 15 Pages. |
| “Non Final Office Action Issued in U.S. Appl. No. 14/752,682”, dated Apr. 27, 2018, 18 Pages. |
| “Final Office Action Issued in U.S. Appl. No. 14/752,727”, dated Sep. 13, 2017, 19 Pages. |
| “Non Final Office Action Issued in U.S. Appl. No. 14/752,727”, dated Feb. 14, 2018, 28 Pages. |
| “Final Office Action Issued in U.S. Appl. No. 14/752,792”, dated Oct. 19, 2017, 14 Pages. |
| “Final Office Action Issued in U.S. Appl. No. 14/752,797”, dated Oct. 19, 2017, 15 Pages. |
| “Office Action Issued in European Patent Application No. 14734631.6”, dated Sep. 30, 2016, 5 Pages. |
| NC2017/0013251, “Office Action Issued in Colombian Patent Application No. NC2017/0013251”, dated date Jul. 4, 2018, 14 Pages. |
| NC2017/0013252, “Office Action Issued in Colombian Patent Application No. NC2017/0013252”, dated dated Jul. 5, 2018, 13 Pages. |
| NC2017/0013272, “Office Action Issued in Colombian Patent Application No. NC2017/0013272”, dated Jan. 9, 2018, 4 Pages. |
| “International Preliminary Report on Patentability Issued in PCT Application No. PCT/US2016/038842”, dated Sep. 27, 2017, 6 Pages. |
| “Second Written Opinion Issued in PCT Application No. PCT/US2016/038842”, dated May 30, 2017, 5 Pages. |
| “International Preliminary Report on Patentability Issued in PCT Application No. PCT/US2016/038843”, dated Sep. 13, 2017, 7 Pages. |
| “Second Written Opinion Issued in PCT Application No. PCT/US2016/038843”, dated Jun. 7, 2017, 6 Pages. |
| “International Preliminary Report on Patentability Issued in PCT Application No. PCT/US2016/038846”, dated Oct. 9, 2017, 6 Pages. |
| “International Search Report and Written Opinion Issued in PCT Application No. PCT/US2016/038846”, dated Oct. 6, 2016, 11 Pages. |
| “Second Written Opinion Issued in PCT Application No. PCT/US2016/038846”, dated Jul. 4, 2017, 5 Pages. |
| “International Preliminary Report on Patentability Issued in PCT Application No. PCT/US2016/038847”, dated Sep. 18, 2017, 5 Pages. |
| “Second Written Opinion Issued in PCT Application No. PCT/US2016/038847”, dated May 30, 2017, 4 Pages. |
| “International Preliminary Report on Patentability Issued in PCT Application No. PCT/US2016/038852”, dated Sep. 13, 2017, 9 Pages. |
| “Second Written Opinion Issued in PCT Application No. PCT/US2016/038852”, dated May 24, 2017, 5 Pages. |
| “International Preliminary Report on Patentability Issued in PCT Application No. PCT/US2016/038854”, dated Jun. 6, 2017, 8 Pages. |
| “PCT Chapter II Demand for International Preliminary Examination and amended claims under Article 34 Issued in PCT Application No. PCT/US2016/038854”, dated Jan. 5, 2017, 23 Pages. |
| “Office Action Issued in Chilean Patent Application No. 201703263”, dated Jan. 11, 2019, 7 Pages. |
| “Office Action Issued in Chilean Patent Application No. 201703264”, dated Jan. 11, 2019, 7 Pages. |
| “Office Action Issued in Chilean Patent Application No. 33102017”, dated Mar. 14, 2019, 9 Pages. |
| “Office Action Issued in Chilean Patent Application No. 201703318”, dated Mar. 26, 2019, 9 Pages. |
| “Office Action Issued in Chilean Patent Application No. 201703263”, dated Apr. 15, 2019, 7 Pages. |
| Number | Date | Country | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 20160378479 A1 | Dec 2016 | US |