9

: 6 questions

: 1 question

Is it really necessary to be so specific? We already have and which together cover the CPU cache. could be created but having separate tags for each level of cache is unnecessary, in my opinion.


I've just done a search for . Out of those (15) questions, some were about the CPU cache in general or about all three levels and quite a few others could be given more than one of the L1, L2 and L3 cache tags.

Thoughts?

  • 1
    For what it's worth, I agree with making those synonyms of cpu-cache. – Ben Voigt May 19 '12 at 21:52
  • 1
    I'd imagine the distinction would only (and even then very rarely) be useful on SO, but certainly not here on SU. – Mahmoud Al-Qudsi May 20 '12 at 4:43
  • Tag creation has a minimum rep requirement, and l3-cache was just creates yesterday. There might be quite a few other fuitable questions whose askers didn't have the rep. I wouldn't hold the question count against those tags. – Daniel Beck May 20 '12 at 17:34
  • @DanielBeck Even then cpu-cache would be better; otherwise the tags are just being too specific. Are you saying we should make a l1-cache? How about a l4-cache for a question asking why they aren't used? The level of cache the question is about, if necessary, can be in the question itself. – Bob May 21 '12 at 4:25
  • You're responding to what I didn't write. I just wrote that question count shouldn't (yet) be held against these tags. – Daniel Beck May 21 '12 at 4:42
6

Create and make both and synonyms of it.

0

Put both and on those questions and just remove and .

  • you are answering your own question with two differ answers? – avirk Jun 13 '12 at 4:24
  • @avirk present 2 different answers is not rare & for meta discussions, it's good to see all POV – Sathyajith Bhat Jun 13 '12 at 4:41

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .