Hello,


Read again about more of my philosophy about how i am smart in computing
and more of my thoughts..

I am a white arab from Morocco, and i think i am smart since i have also invented many scalable algorithms and algorithms..


I think i am really smart since i can also rapidly think like
an architect, since i think that i am smart by like finding the
the best path, like the best path of what is the big weaknesses of
reverse engineering that permit us to fight much more efficiently
reverse engineering, also i am finding the best path that finds
the big defect of the Go programming language(read about it in my below thoughts), so then you are also understanding this smart way of mine, so
for example i will now "rapidly" find the big weaknesses of the new
Intel toolkit called OneAPI and i will do it in a more smart way, so
i will start by making you notice that the big weakness of
message passing of MPI is that it is too low level, since the
very important thing that lacks MPI is also that it lacks higher level datastructures that permit us to use them in a transparent way
across processes and across computer machines, other than
that, the other big weakness of message passing of MPI is that it is not
a programming language that provides a unified shared memory with
sophisticated data types objects across processes and across computer
machines, and it is the big defect of the new Intel toolkit that we call OneAPI, since notice how it is so low level by providing with just the following memory objects in the unified shared memory across processes
and across computer machines, here it is and notice it carefully:

https://oneapi-src.github.io/DPCPP_Reference/model/memory-objects.html


So then the big weakness of the new Intel toolkit called OneAPI
is that it is still too low level as message passing of MPI is too low
level.

More of my philosophy about copyrights and about patents and about
reverse engineering and more..

I am really smart, and i will talk more about reverse engineering, so i
think that the creative ways to break disassemblers or debuggers or by
using source code Obfuscation are not so efficient against reverse
engineering, so i will give you my smart way of doing it, first as i
have just told you, that you have to protect your value-added of your
code that you want to sell by for example using more difficult or
difficult algorithms in a smart way that are more difficult or difficult
to understand with assembler code from machine code, and after that you
have to use copyright in a smart way, for example i will use like the
following service from a company in Canada that provides a copyright
filled and certified by a public notary that is valid for 172 countries,
you can read about it here:

http://en.scopyright.ca/

But you have to be smart, since the "patent" that protects an algorithm
is not valid in so many countries such as India etc., so the best way is
to use a copyright as i am doing it, so that this kind of copyright
allows you to fill a lawsuit against binary code that is stolen from you
by asking the one that has stolen from you to show his source code in
a legal lawsuit.

Read my previous thoughts:

I think i am really smart, and i think that the problem with reverse engineering of binary software programs or dynamic or shared libraries
is that even if you use artificial intelligence or sophisticated tools
of reverse engineering, the main hard problem for reverse engineering is
how to understand the "meaning" of the algorithm, since if the
algorithms is difficult , it can be so difficult to understand it with assembler code, this is the main big weakness of reverse engineering,
but of course with reverse engineering you can obtain the assembler from
the machine code, so you can then crack the binary code since it is
much less difficult than understanding a difficult algorithm , and after
that you can give the binary code that is cracked, but with this kind of
way of doing you have to be aware that the cracked binary code can
contain a virus, this is why a "trusthworthy" relationship between a
software developer or developers and the customers is so important. And
it is my way of doing that is creating a trusthworthy relationship
with my customers and with you here in those newsgroups forums and such.

And read my following previous thoughts:

More of my philosophy about reverse engineering..

Simply pulling a piece of software through a decompiler does not
directly yield easily readable code for several reasons.

First of all, names of variables and functions are not kept through the compilation process, so the decompiler will assign generic names. It is
much harder to read code that looks like "f8s6ex2(i37zc, sk1eo)" than it
is to read "CalculatePrice(articleId, amount)".

Secondly, a compiler has a variety of optimization tricks that it will
use during compilation to make the code more efficient. A decompiler
will return this "optimized" code, which will look a lot less readable
than the original.

Just compiling the Delphi mode of freepascal source code with
optimizations (-O2 and up) and stripping all debug and profile
information, and apply smartlinking, will make it almost
un-decompilable. Not only FPC, but also Delphi.

The level of software reverse complexity is different according to
different program languages. generally speaking, compiled language
reverse engineering is more difficult than interpreted language. in
compiled languages, I think that C++ or the Delphi mode of Freepascal
reverse engineering is the most difficult job. why? because it is very
hard to transform assembly language into high level language(C++) or to
Delphi mode of freepascal as i am also explaining above.

So in reverse engineering there is almost no way to re-create the Delphi
mode of freepascal or Delphi source code from the binary.

More of my philosophy about programming languages and about lock-based
systems and more of my thoughts..

I think we have to be optimistic about lock-based systems, since race conditions detection can be done in polynomial-time, and it is not
NP-hard, and you can notice it by reading the following paper:

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1901.08857.pdf

Or by reading the following paper:

https://books.google.ca/books?id=f5BXl6nRgAkC&pg=PA421&lpg=PA421&dq=race+condition+detection+and+polynomial+complexity&source=bl&ots=IvxkORGkQ9&sig=ACfU3U2x0fDnNLHP1Cjk5bD_fdJkmjZQsQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjKoNvg0MP0AhWioXIEHRQsDJc4ChDoAXoECAwQAw#v=
onepage&q=race%20condition%20detection%20and%20polynomial%20complexity&f=false

So i think we can continu to program in lock-based systems, and about composability of lock-based systems, read my below previous thoughts
about it:

More of my philosophy about composability and more..

I have just read quickly the following article about composability,
so i invite you to read it carefully:

https://bartoszmilewski.com/2014/06/09/the-functional-revolution-in-c/

I am not in accordance with the above article, and i think that the
above scientist is programming in Haskell functional language and it is
for him the way to composability, since he says that the way of
functional programming like Haskell functional programming is the
the way that allows composability in presence of concurrency, but for
him lock-based systems don't allow it, but i don't agree with him, and
i will give you the logical proof of it, and here it is, read what is
saying an article from ACM that was written by both Bryan M. Cantrill
and Jeff Bonwick from Sun Microsystems:

You can read about Bryan M. Cantrill here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bryan_Cantrill

And you can read about Jeff Bonwick here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Bonwick

And here is what says the article about composability in the presence of concurrency of lock-based systems:

"Design your systems to be composable. Among the more galling claims of
the detractors of lock-based systems is the notion that they are somehow uncomposable:

“Locks and condition variables do not support modular programming,”
reads one typically brazen claim, “building large programs by gluing
together smaller programs[:] locks make this impossible.”9 The claim, of course, is incorrect. For evidence one need only point at the
composition of lock-based systems such as databases and operating
systems into larger systems that remain entirely unaware of lower-level locking.

There are two ways to make lock-based systems completely composable, and
each has its own place. First (and most obviously), one can make locking entirely internal to the subsystem. For example, in concurrent operating systems, control never returns to user level with in-kernel locks held;
the locks used to implement the system itself are entirely behind the
system call interface that constitutes the interface to the system. More generally, this model can work whenever a crisp interface exists between software components: as long as control flow is never returned to the
caller with locks held, the subsystem will remain composable.

Second (and perhaps counterintuitively), one can achieve concurrency and composability by having no locks whatsoever. In this case, there must be
no global subsystem state—subsystem state must be captured in
per-instance state, and it must be up to consumers of the subsystem to
assure that they do not access their instance in parallel. By leaving
locking up to the client of the subsystem, the subsystem itself can be
used concurrently by different subsystems and in different contexts. A
concrete example of this is the AVL tree implementation used extensively
in the Solaris kernel. As with any balanced binary tree, the
implementation is sufficiently complex to merit componentization, but by
not having any global state, the implementation may be used concurrently
by disjoint subsystems—the only constraint is that manipulation of a
single AVL tree instance must be serialized."

Read more here:

https://queue.acm.org/detail.cfm?id=1454462

More of my philosophy about ThreadSanitizer and about Go programming
language and more of my thoughts..


I think i am really smart, and here is the second weakness of Go
programming language, so Go programming language is using
ThreadSanitizer algorithm in its race detector so that to detect race conditions, but here is the weakness of ThreadSanitizer:

So read carefully the following paper about ThreadSanitizer:

https://static.googleusercontent.com/media/research.google.com/en//pubs/archive/35604.pdf

And it says in the conclusion the following:

"ThreadSanitizer uses a new algorithm; it has several modes of
operation, ranging from the most conservative mode (which has few false positives but also misses real races) to a very aggressive one (which
has more false positives but detects the largest number of
real races)."

So as you are noticing since the very agressive mode of Threadsanitizer
doesn't detect "all" the data races, so then it is a problem, so then CSP(Communicating sequential processes) model can not help Go, since
read my below thoughts so that to understand, so then it is not
"scalable", so it is not good, since you can still take a lot of time to
verify a big project so that to find the remaining data races that are
not detected by ThreadSanitizer.

More of my philosophy about the Go programming language and its big
defect and more of my thoughts..

I think i am really smart, and i will make you understand the big defect
of Go programming language, and it is that so that to avoid effectively
race conditions with the CSP(Communicating sequential processes) model,
you have to have different memory address spaces for different processes
that are distributed accross different machines or local to a machine,
so if you use threads or lightweight thread like is using Go programming language, so then CSP(Communicating sequential processes) model will not
work, since in the same memory address space, you can still have race conditions. So notice carefully how superpascal is doing it by using
parallel "processes" with different memory address spaces by reading the following:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SuperPascal

Message passing of MPI for distributed programming is doing the same.

More of my philosophy about Superpascal and about CSP(Communicating
sequential processes) and more..

I think i am smart, and i am also programming in Object Pascal
of Delphi and Freepascal, and i think i am also a smart "Wirthian"
programmer of the Wirthian familly of ALGOL-like languages, since i have programmed in Pascal and i have also programmed in Superpascal(You can
read about it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SuperPascal), and
i have programmed in Object Pascal of Delphi and Freepascal, and i know
more about Superpascal, that was an interesting enhancement of the
pascal language, that brought an enhancement in a form of a "Forall"
statement that is like a Parallel For loop, and that brought an
enhancement in a form of "Channels" that look like Go channels and that
permit to code parallel programs, so the Superpascal channels allowed us
to program like in CSP(Communicating sequential processes) that is a
formal language for describing patterns of interaction in concurrent
systems. And CSP(Communicating sequential processes) is a member of the
family of mathematical theories of concurrency known as process
algebras, or process calculi, based on message passing via channels, so Superpascal Channels allowed us to avoid parallel bugs such as race
conditions, but i think that those channels can also be used in a more
simple way like in the following article, so that they permit to avoid
race conditions and that's also i think a much better enhancement, so
read the following article so that to know about the more simple way of
using Go channels or Superpascal channels so that to avoid race conditions:

https://fodor.org/blog/go-avoiding-race-conditions/

And so that you get an idea about Superpascal, you can look
at its source code in Freepascal here in Gitub:

https://github.com/octonion/superpascal

So as you notice that Superpascal programming language, that was
invented in year 1993, has preceded Go programming language by providing Channels etc. that permit to do parallel programming by avoiding race conditions and such parallel programming bugs.

But you have to know that i am smart and i have also enhanced
Object Pascal of Freepascal and Delphi by inventing the following
Threadpool that scales well and that supports parallel for loop,
you can read about it carefully here in my websites:

https://sites.google.com/site/scalable68/an-efficient-threadpool-engine-with-priorities-that-scales-very-well

And i have also enhanced Object Pascal of Freepascal and Delphi by
inventing a Scalable reference counting with efficient support for weak references, you can take a look carefully about it here in my websites:

https://sites.google.com/site/scalable68/scalable-reference-counting-with-efficient-support-for-weak-references

So as you notice that i am also an inventor of many scalable algorithms
and algorithms..

More of my philosophy about stack memory allocations and about
preemptive and non-preemptive timesharing..

I think i am smart, and as you are noticing in my below thoughts that
i am abstracting smartly so that to make you understand preemptive and non-preemptive timesharing , other than that i will also give you
an interesting Stack memory allocation algorithm in Delphi and
Freepascal so that to use it smartly with my below sophisticated
Stackful coroutines Library, so i will extend my sophisticated Stackful coroutines Library so that to support it smartly, and here it is:

--

var pool: array [1..limit] of integer;
memory: array [min..max] of integer;
top: integer;


procedure initialize;

var index: integer;

begin
for index := 1 to limit do
pool[index] := empty;
top := min − 1
end;

procedure allocate( index, length: integer; var address: integer);

begin

address := pool[index];
if address <> empty then
pool[index] := memory[address]
else
begin
address := top + 1;
top := top + length;
if not (top <= max)
then raise Exception.Create('Stack overflow..')

end
end;

procedure release( index, address: integer);
begin
memory[address] := pool[index];
pool[index] := address
end;

--


More of my philosophy about about the paper and about preemptive and non-preemptive timesharing and more..

I have just forgotten to post about who has written the following
paper about cooperative and preemptive tasking:

https://users.ece.cmu.edu/~koopman/pubs/koopman90_HeavyweightTasking.pdf

Here is the Professor Phil Koopman of Carnegie Mellon University from Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering who has written
this paper:

https://users.ece.cmu.edu/~koopman/personal.html

And note that i am calling, in my thoughts below, cooperative and
preemptive tasking: "preemptive and non-preemptive timesharing"

More of my philosophy about Intel 8051 controller and about preemptive
and non-preemptive timesharing and more..

I have just quickly read the following interesting paper and it says
that judicious use of cooperative tasking techniques can also often meet
an embedded system's multitasking requirements, while giving better
performance and a simpler software environment than a preemptive
multitasker, so read it carefully here:

https://users.ece.cmu.edu/~koopman/pubs/koopman90_HeavyweightTasking.pdf

And notice that it also says in the above paper that so that to meet
the requirements with cooperative multitasking you have to move the time-critical code to interrupt-service routines. And let us look
for example at the Intel 8051 controller here:

https://www.electronicwings.com/8051/introduction-to-8051-controller

So as you notice that it has many hardware interrupts that you can
use so that to make the cooperative tasking efficient, and i think it
also comes with two clock timers interrupts that you can use to
implement preemptive multitasking if you want, and you have also to know
about interrupt latency when programming embedded systems with hardware controllers, and you have to know that the hardware interrupts have to
get serviced fast enough and often enough, so you shouldn't disable
interrupts for too long a period of time, and just to give you an idea
, look for example at the nonbuffered communication UART (Universal Asynchronous Receiver Transmitter) operating at 38,400 bits per second
will interrupt every 208 microseconds. This is 1/38,400*8 because they
will interrupt for every byte (8 bits), and a processor or controller
running at 25MHz executes most of its instructions in
2 or 3 system-clock periods. That would be an average of 120 nanoseconds (1/25,000,000*3). In theory, this means you could execute as
many as 1,730 instructions in the interrupt interval. So that was only
in theory, now you have to do the reality check. You must take into consideration that there are more interrupts than just that
communication channel. The timer interrupt will be firing off every so
often. And the communication interrupt itself will have interrupts
disabled for good period of time, and not only that, but there is also
the tasks switch that can be expensive, so you have to think about
it efficiently.

So i invite you to read my below thoughts about preemptive and
non-preemptive timesharing and more so that to understand much more efficiently:

More of my philosophy about preemptive and non-preemptive timesharing
and more..

I have just took a smart look at Modula-2 language(Modula-2 is a
structured, procedural programming language developed between 1977 and
1985 by Niklaus Wirth at ETH Zurich, and he has also developed Pascal
language, read about Niklaus Wirth here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niklaus_Wirth), and i think Modula-2
language was among the first languages that has provided preemptive and non-preemptive timesharing with coroutines, but the preemptive
timesharing in Modula-2 uses Interrupt handling using IOTRANSFER, but it
is best reserved for programs that will run without operating system
support. Installing an interrupt handler on a multiuser system is not feasi­ble because doing so would affect other users. (For this reason, IOTRANSFER is not a mandatory feature of Modula-2.) Even on single-user systems, IOTRANSFER can be difficult to use because installing an
interrupt handler causes the old interrupt handler (which most likely
belongs to the operating system) to be lost. So this is why i think that
the best way in modern operating systems is to use non-preemptive
timesharing with coroutines, so this is why i am providing you with my sophisticated implementation of stackful coroutines, read about it in my thoughts below:

More of my philosophy about timesharing that is a Solution to Computer Bottlenecks..

I invite you to look at the following very interesting video about
timesharing that is a Solution to Computer Bottlenecks:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q07PhW5sCEk

I think i am smart, and you have to understand one important thing
and it is: What is the difference between a software architect and
a software engineer?, i think there is an important difference and it
is also like abstracted in the following question:

"How it is made?"

So i think that software engineering works at a higher level than
a software architect, this is why you will notice that i am
quickly implementing a sophisticated stackful coroutines
Library and i am quickly implementing setjmp() and longjmp() with
x64 assembler or code machine, read my below thoughts about them, but
you have to know that my sophisticated stackful coroutines Library
does a kind of timesharing as in the above video, but i think that there
is two kinds of timesharing: the preemptive one, and the non-preemptive
one, but the difference is that the preemptive one does interrupt with a
timer the coroutines from an external scheduler in
a form of function, but notice below that i am implementing the
non-preemptive timesharing in my sophisticated coroutines Library, but
you have to be smart and notice that my way of doing is like the
software architect way, since i am implementing it from the lowest level
with x64 assembler routines that are part of the non-preemptive
scheduler, but not only that, but you have also to look at how i am also implementing a
sophisticated and much more rich interface in my stackful coroutines
Library, so it is like both software achitecting and software
engineering, so here is all my below thoughts that shows how i am
implementing it quickly, so read it carefully since you have also to
know what's the problem with the stack frames when architecturing and
using the setjmp() and longjmp() so that to implement coroutines:

More of my philosophy and precision about the link of the article and more..

And notice that the link below of the article that shows the problem
of implementing coroutines with just setjmp() and longjmp()
is from the last semester of the second year of the course
called "CS4411 Operating Systems" from Michigan Technological
University, but i think i am smart and those courses are easy
for me, so i invite you to read about this course that requires
both the course of "CS3331 Concurrent Computing" and "CS3421 Computer Organization", and here it is:

http://www.csl.mtu.edu/cs4411.ck/www/Home.html

More of my philosophy about coroutines and about setjmp() and longjmp()..

I think i am smart, and i will say that with setjmp() and longjmp()
you can implement a generator or the like, but you can not implement
coroutines with just setjmp() and longjmp(), and so that to understand
it, i invite you to read the following article that shows how when you
yield from a first function with a longjmp() to the main body of a
program and when you call another functions with longjmp(), it can make
the stack frames not work correctly, and when you understand it you will
not use setjmp() and longjmp() alone so that to implement coroutines, so
read the following article so that to understand the problem with
the stack frames, and i am understanding it easily:

https://www.csl.mtu.edu/cs4411.ck/www/NOTES/non-local-goto/coroutine.html

So this is why i have also implemented my sophisticated stackful
coroutines library so that to solve this problem, and here is my
sophisticated coroutines library and read about it and download it from
here:

https://sites.google.com/site/scalable68/object-oriented-stackful-coroutines-library-for-delphi-and-freepascal

More of my philosophy about setjmp() and longjmp() and generators and coroutines..

I have just quickly implemented setjmp() and longjmp() in x64 assembler,
and after that i have just implemented quickly a good example of a
generator with my setjmp() and longjmp(), look at it below, and in
computer science, a generator is a routine that can be used to control
the iteration behaviour of a loop. All generators are also iterators. A generator is very similar to a function that returns an array, in that a generator has parameters, can be called, and generates a sequence of
values. However, instead of building an array containing all the values
and returning them all at once, a generator yields the values one at a
time, which requires less memory and allows the caller to get started processing the first few values immediately. In short, a generator looks
like a function but behaves like an iterator. So here is my
implementations in freepascal and delphi and they are working perfectly:

Here is my first unit that implements longjmp() and setjmp() and notice
how i am saving the non-volatile registers and how i am coding it in
x64 assembler:

======


{ Volatile registers: The calling program assumes registers
RAX, RCX, RDX, and R8 through R11 are volatile.
The contents of registers RBX, RSI, RDI, RBP, RSP, and
R12 through R15 are considered non-volatile. Functions return
values in RAX. }



unit JmpLib64;

{$IFDEF FPC}
{$ASMMODE intel}
{$ENDIF}
interface

type
jmp_buf = record
RBX,
RSI,
RDI,
RSP,
RBP,
RIP,
R12,
R13,
R14,
R15: UInt64;
end;

{ setjmp captures the complete task state which can later be used to
perform a non-local goto using longjmp. setjmp returns 0 when it is
initially called, and a non-zero value when it is returning from a call
to longjmp. setjmp must be called before longjmp. }

function setjmp(out jmpb: jmp_buf): UInt64;

{ longjmp restores the task state captured by setjmp (and passed in
jmpb). It then returns in such a way that setjmp appears to have
returned with the value retval. setjmp must be called before longjmp. }

procedure longjmp(const jmpb: jmp_buf; retval: UInt64);
implementation

function setjmp(out jmpb: jmp_buf): UInt64; assembler;{$IFDEF FPC} nostackframe; {$ENDIF}register;
asm
{ -> RCX jmpb }
{ <- RAX Result }
MOV RDX, [RSP] // Fetch return address (RIP)
// Save task state
MOV [RCX+jmp_buf.&RBX], RBX
MOV [RCX+jmp_buf.&RSI], RSI
MOV [RCX+jmp_buf.&RDI], RDI
MOV [RCX+jmp_buf.&RSP], RSP
MOV [RCX+jmp_buf.&RBP], RBP
MOV [RCX+jmp_buf.&RIP], RDX
MOV [RCX+jmp_buf.&R12], R12
MOV [RCX+jmp_buf.&R13], R13
MOV [RCX+jmp_buf.&R14], R14
MOV [RCX+jmp_buf.&R15], R15


SUB RAX, RAX
@@1:
end;

procedure longjmp(const jmpb: jmp_buf; retval: UInt64);assembler;{$IFDEF
FPC} nostackframe; {$ENDIF}register;
asm
{ -> RCX jmpb }
{ RDX retval }
{ <- RAX Result }
XCHG RDX, RCX
MOV RAX,RCX
MOV RCX, [RDX+jmp_buf.&RIP]
// Restore task state
MOV RBX, [RDX+jmp_buf.&RBX]
MOV RSI, [RDX+jmp_buf.&RSI]
MOV RDI, [RDX+jmp_buf.&RDI]
MOV RSP, [RDX+jmp_buf.&RSP]
MOV RBP, [RDX+jmp_buf.&RBP]
MOV R12, [RDX+jmp_buf.&R12]
MOV R13, [RDX+jmp_buf.&R13]
MOV R14, [RDX+jmp_buf.&R14]
MOV R15, [RDX+jmp_buf.&R15]
MOV [RSP], RCX // Restore return address (RIP)

TEST RAX, RAX // Ensure retval is <> 0
JNZ @@1
MOV RAX, 1
@@1:
end;

end.

================

And here is my example of a generator with my longjmp() and setjmp():


{ In computer science, a generator is a routine that can be used to
control the iteration behaviour of a loop. All generators are also
iterators. A generator is very similar to a function that returns an
array, in that a generator has parameters, can be called, and generates
a sequence of values. However, instead of building an array containing
all the values and returning them all at once, a generator yields the
values one at a time, which requires less memory and allows the caller
to get started processing the first few values immediately. In short, a generator looks like a function but behaves like an iterator. }

program test_generator;

{$APPTYPE CONSOLE}

uses
JmpLib64;

type PtrInt = ^Integer;

var
childtask,maintask: jmp_buf;
myarr1: array of integer;
i,a:integer;
Ptr1:PtrInt;

function generator(var myarr:array of integer):integer;

var i1:integer;
val:integer;
ptr:PtrInt;
begin


i1:=0;

val:= setjmp(childtask);

i1:=val-1;

if val=0 then
begin
new(ptr);
ptr^:=myarr1[i1];
longjmp(maintask,uint64(ptr));
end;

if val=10
then
begin
writeln('Exiting child..');
exit;
end;

inc(i1);
new(ptr);
ptr^:=myarr1[i1];
longjmp(maintask,uint64(ptr));
end;

begin

setlength(myarr1,10);

for i:=0 to 9
do myarr1[i]:=i;

uint64(ptr1):=setjmp(maintask);

if ptr1=nil then generator(myarr1);

a:=ptr1^;
dispose(ptr1);

if (a<=length(myarr1))
then
begin
if a=length(myarr1)
then longjmp(childtask,a+1)
else
begin
writeln('Value returned by generator is: ',a);
longjmp(childtask,a+1);
end;
end;

setlength(myarr1,0);

end.

=====



More of my philosophy about Intel's Alder Lake and more of my thoughts..


I think that the new Intel's Alder Lake is a winner, and i think that
the performance/efficiency core design of Intel's Alder Lake could find
its way into servers, workstations, or embedded IT systems as you can
notice it by reading the following article:

https://www.networkworld.com/article/3631072/will-intels-new-desktop-cpu-design-come-to-its-xeon-server-chips.html

More of my philosophy about the ARM and x86 memory models and more
of my thoughts..

I think i am smart, and as you have just noticed i have just said
that x86 is the future(read my below thoughts so that to understand why)
, but i think that ARM architecture has another big defect, since its
weak hardware memory model has not balanced correctly between safety or security and performance, so i think that it is a big defect in ARM,
read carefully the following article about x86 TSO memory model:

https://research.swtch.com/hwmm

So notice that Intel says that it has well balanced between safety or
security and performance by saying the following:

"To address these problems, Owens et al. proposed the x86-TSO model,
based on the earlier SPARCv8 TSO model. At the time they claimed that
“To the best of our knowledge, x86-TSO is sound, is strong enough to
program above, and is broadly in line with the vendors’ intentions.” A
few months later Intel and AMD released new manuals broadly adopting
this model."

And read more here so that to understand that x86 TSO memory model is
very good:

https://jakob.engbloms.se/archives/1435


So i think that ARM has a big defect since it has to provide
with TSO memory model as RISC-V is providing it, since it is
very important for the security or safety concerns


[continued in next message]

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)