Reputation
21,011
Top tag
Next privilege 25,000 Rep.
Access to site analytics
Badges
5 51 88
Impact
~1.0m people reached

  • 0 posts edited
  • 1 helpful flag
  • 1,213 votes cast
Feb
2
awarded  Popular Question
Nov
3
awarded  Famous Question
Oct
16
awarded  Good Answer
Oct
7
comment Parallelism implies concurrency but not the other way round right?
Indeed, that's what the wiki entry currently says (it is possible to have parallelism without concurrency (such as bit-level parallelism)). But I don't get that point at all; isn't bit-level parallelism the most concurrent thing imaginable - more operations performed with less instructions, then aren't some of those operations performed within same instruction, i.e. simultaneously, i.e. concurrently?
Oct
5
comment Parallelism implies concurrency but not the other way round right?
@KaiSellgren: Please cite some source to support your statement.
Sep
18
awarded  Yearling
Sep
12
awarded  Enlightened
Sep
12
awarded  Nice Answer
Aug
29
awarded  Enlightened
Aug
29
awarded  Nice Answer
Jul
21
awarded  Good Answer
Feb
22
awarded  Nice Answer
Oct
9
comment Why should your code not use 100% CPU?
@romkyns: Fair point. But as the Electromigration Wikipedia entry says, when operated within the manufacturer's specified temperature and voltage range, a *properly designed* IC device is more likely to fail from other (environmental) causes, such as cumulative damage from gamma-ray bombardment.
Oct
8
awarded  Guru
Oct
8
comment Why should your code not use 100% CPU?
@immibis: Please clarify.
Oct
7
awarded  Good Answer
Oct
7
awarded  Enlightened
Oct
7
awarded  Nice Answer
Oct
7
awarded  Custodian
Oct
7
reviewed Approve Why should your code not use 100% CPU?