I'm tired of the dominance of the out-of-order processor. They are large and wasteful, the ever-popular x86 is especially poor, and they are hard to understand. Their voodoo would be more appreciated if they pushed better at the limits of computation, but it's obvious that the problems people solve have a latent inaccessible parallelism far in excess of what an out-of-order core can extract. The future of computing should surely not rest on terawatts of power burnt to pretend a processor is simpler than it is.
There is some hope in the ideas of upstarts, like Mill Computing and Tachyum, as well as research ideas like CG-OoO. I don't know if they will ever find success. I wouldn't bet on it. Heck, the Mill might never even get far enough to have the opportunity to fail. Yet I find them exciting, and much of the offhand "sounds like Itanium" naysay is uninteresting.
This article focuses on architectures in proportion to how much creative, interesting work they've shown in public. This means much of this article comments on the Mill architecture, there is a healthy amount on CG-OoO, and the Tachyum is mentioned only in passing.
https://medium.com/@veedrac/to-reinvent-the-processor-671139a4a034
A commentary on some of the more unusual OoO architectures in the works with focus on Mill Computing's belt machines.
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Wednesday May 15 2019, @02:38AM
Except that happens entirely invisibly to the program, and unless I'm very much mistaken, should not be relevant to optimization. Putting executables in random places in memory has negligible effect on memory access times (instructions access patterns within an executable or library are the same, only the absolute memory location is changed), nor on instruction execution order.