Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Get HideMyAss! VPN, PC Mag's Top 10 VPNs of 2016 for 55% off for a Limited Time ×

Submission + - Relaxed accuracy doesn't imply catastrophic failure (mit.edu)

QQBoss writes: Coming from the mostly embedded world as I do, where a missed deadline or wrong value can mean destroyed hardware (or, more importantly, dead people), the thought of an inaccurate CPU is more than a little troubling. The authors of this paper from MIT understand that, and so they have developed mathematical frameworks to show you can rigorously limit the possibility of catastrophic failure.

Two years ago, loop perforation was shown to provide results faster and/or more efficiently than traditional CPUs by trading accuracy for performance, but the June paper presentation at the Association for Computing Machinery's Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation should help put minds like mine at ease that we can have it faster and cheaper (which qualifies as better, without the whole death side effect problem).

This discussion was created for logged-in users only, but now has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Relaxed accuracy doesn't imply catastrophic failure

Comments Filter:

I just asked myself... what would John DeLorean do? -- Raoul Duke

Working...