> Fortran code ignores the very possibility that pointer content can overlap. Modern compilers do not.
Fortran's language specification doesn't allow pointers to overlap. Inhibiting programmer freedom in this way ironically gives the compiler greater freedom to perform optimizations.
In contrast C & co, give the programmer this freedom, resulting in the compiler having to be more conservative.
Location aliasing inhibits intermediate code optimization as the optimizer cannot assume that two pointers point to difference locations. If the optimizer can safely make that assumption it can do more with the code.
Aside: during my compiler design class, the lecturer spent time going over some optimizations (obviously). Towards the end of the lecture: "oh but if p aliases q, you cannot use that optimization".
 Any compiler worth its use translates input files into some form of intermediate representation for optimization purposes.
This wrecks havoc as the compiler can no longer assume some optimizations are safe.
Otherwise your post is mostly correct.
This is an entirely different beast to what's presented in the paper.
Instruction-level parallelism occurs when there are instructions within a (fixed) window of a code stream where there are no dependencies between two or more instructions.
The VLIW paradigm is have bundles of instructions which contain all instructions that can be executed simultaneously. This shifts complexity from the hardware to the compiler.
Unfortunately, ILP can be very difficult to extract from arbitrary code, though cases exist where it's trivial.
 Latter RISC chips and today's non-mobile CPUs take advantage of ILP through the use of multi-issue out of order execution. Out-of-order execution typically defers execution of any given instruction until all its dependencies have been fulfilled i.e. memory/cache accesses have occurred, previous results are available, etc. By making these units multi-issue the CPU dynamically exploits ILP to the availability of hardware, no recompilation required (though it may help).
These hardware techniques are slowly coming to the mobile arena as they are relatively expensive transistor wise.
Mind you this was a walk-in procedure, not an impacted tooth or anything. And it definitely wasn't subisidized by the Irish government (that's where you get a discount for paying PRSI). Which appears to have been cut.
Leaching indirectly off insurance companies? That'd be interesting given the VHI tend to refund costs of low priced stuff to the you directly afaik.
60 Euro. And that included an X-Ray to say, "Yes, that tooth is pretty much irrecoverable".
And I probably could have gotten it performed cheaper outside the capital.
Shame really that someone couldn't even do the research to see if such wild claims about MS are in any way true.