Talk:Speculative multithreading

This page was proposed for deletion by Ethanpet113 (talk · contribs) on 18 November 2018 with the comment:
This seems to be a loose collection of references and no real article body. I can't see any way that something can possibly be parallelised by a thread but not instructions. It appears to be describing a virtual machine that makes determinations about thread execution order without programmer intervention in a manner that cannot be done ahead of time. If an the claim is that an AoT algorithm may be unable to auto-vectorize a process because of unresolved variables, such as indexes into an array in a for loop. But that being the case, it would still be an AoT algorithm on the for loop with just a lazy evaluation. I'm not even certain that would be possible without a perfect oracle. I think it might have merit but in its current state it looks too suspect to be in the main article space.
It was contested by Mark viking (talk · contribs) on 2018-11-18 with the comment:
GScholar and GBooks searches both show this to be a likely notable topic. A list of references that could be used to build an article is already provided, so despite the short stub, an article seems viable

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Speculative multithreading article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Computing

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool as Stub-class because it uses a stub template. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

What's going on here?

This is a 3 sentence article with 18 references. Something gone wrong? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.152.90.185 (talk) 09:33, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's a much longer article in the deleted contributions, the author requested deletion because the content appeared in a published article by him and he signed over his copyright to the publisher. —Ruud 12:48, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Someone should expand this aricle

Someone should expand this aricle. There should be at least a list of speculative multithreading technologies in it. --MrBurns (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:12, 11 May 2012 (UTC).[reply]

I've tried to re-structure to a lede section that describes what its about in simple terms, a description which hopefully should describe the core basis (I might but probably wont do a simple example at some point) and leave open for another section to describe the technologies. Hopefully this is helpful.Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:19, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A definition and list of references is better than nothing. Servalo (talk) 08:35, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

November 2018 article issues

One of the problems with this article is lack of in-line citations. I've added an in-line cite/reference which on page 2 describes TLS. I've added a content from that which particially describes TLS. A big Gotcha seems to be a lot of the further reading decribes methods of exploiting TLS without describing what TLS is ... and the article needs to be careful in separating particular techniques for exploiting TLS from the overall concept. I feel there is a danger some of the information in the article may not be factually correct in context in the current version, though I am in no means certain this has indeed been challenged. Overall I have tagged anything that could be challenged specifically with CN. I might return and resolve some of these butI may well not. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 14:29, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]