Intel Forced to Remove "Cripple AMD" Function from Compiler?
in [Chips]
|
Prev: No multicore grahics from Intel, Intel withdraws Larrabee!
Next: Several Ntoskrnl BSOD crashes over the last week, but different stopcodes
From: Yousuf Khan on 7 Jan 2010 01:49 Bill Davidsen wrote: > I assume that the ID string check takes place at compile time, and that > running the compiler on a Intel CPU would produce the optimal code run > anywhere. I find it hard to believe that they have two or more sets of > code in the object file and incur the overhead of a runtime check and > selection, just because the executable would be huge and slow on any > CPU. So what we're talking here is that Intel compilers produce better > code on Intel CPUs. It's a runtime check. It's absolutely required because even on Intel's own processors, not all instruction set extensions are supported. So Intel needs to detect which instructions are supported. The alternate paths aren't that large in size, but they are critical paths based on how often they are executed. > Interesting to know if the "good" code would actually fail to run > properly on some AMD CPU, letting Intel claim it was assuring reliable > operation wherever run. Don't read that to mean I claim that, just > technical curiosity. Intel came up with a system to check for instruction set extensions which it fails to follow itself! Yousuf Khan
From: Robert Myers on 7 Jan 2010 16:57 On Jan 7, 1:49 am, Yousuf Khan <bbb...(a)spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote: > Bill Davidsen wrote: > > I assume that the ID string check takes place at compile time, and that > > running the compiler on a Intel CPU would produce the optimal code run > > anywhere. I find it hard to believe that they have two or more sets of > > code in the object file and incur the overhead of a runtime check and > > selection, just because the executable would be huge and slow on any > > CPU. So what we're talking here is that Intel compilers produce better > > code on Intel CPUs. > > It's a runtime check. It's absolutely required because even on Intel's > own processors, not all instruction set extensions are supported. So > Intel needs to detect which instructions are supported. > > The alternate paths aren't that large in size, but they are critical > paths based on how often they are executed. > > > Interesting to know if the "good" code would actually fail to run > > properly on some AMD CPU, letting Intel claim it was assuring reliable > > operation wherever run. Don't read that to mean I claim that, just > > technical curiosity. > > Intel came up with a system to check for instruction set extensions > which it fails to follow itself! Keep it up, Yousuf. You're doing a great job of making both you and AMD look foolish and vindictive. Wouldn't it be great if Microsoft had a competitor like this. They could recompense all of us for all of the time we have spent trying to deal with their crippled software. So Intel made sure its compiler worked for its own processors but wasn't so careful with AMD. Like no one else in the business who's in a hurry and has limited resources does similar? Bottom line, if you had your way: Yousuf happy, lawyers rich, industry devastated. Good job. Robert.
From: Yousuf Khan on 7 Jan 2010 17:13 shofar wrote: > In article <4b458229$1(a)news.bnb-lp.com>, > Yousuf Khan <bbbl67(a)spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote: > >> And as I said, FTC is going to make Intel pay to recompile and >> redistribute all of the software created on Intel compilers. That >> includes all of that Oracle software. That should cost Intel billions, >> just by itself! >> > > But, what are the odds that this is actually enforceable? It's the government, they determine what is enforceable or not. > What does this mean for the average home user? Probably not much. > Are only business apps affected? Mostly. > Lots of users don't run a lot of heavy-weight apps. > Say, Nero to burn discs or playing a game from one of many game > developers. How does a user know if their software was compiled on an > Intel computer - chances are that a lot of it was. The home user doesn't need to know, the company they bought their software from, will know what compiler they used to compile with. So if Nero was compiled with an Intel compiler, Nero's manufacturer will contact Intel, ask for some money back, etc. Most likely whether the corrected version gets to the end users is upto the app developer. They might advertise it as "New & Improved, now with enhancements for AMD processors". :-) > Are all the developers going to make newly-compiled versions of their > old software available for download or snail mail delivery? I doubt in most cases that it makes much of a difference to the performance of most apps. It's high-performance software that will be mostly affected. That's not as big a market as general-purpose applications, but it's an important segment. > Retroactive how far back - certainly through XP? For however long the FTC can prove that there were these shenanigans going on. I'm sure it's going to simply mean all versions of the compiler going back to version X.Y.Z or something like that. > You are right - it will cost Intel billions - if it happens. > But, somehow, it just doesn't seem realistic with Windows already up to > 7 and loads of new Linux distros freely available. Most Linux distros are not done with an Intel compiler, mostly with GNU. In the Windows world, most apps are also similarly not done with an Intel compiler, mainly a Microsoft one. Intel compilers are known to be a niche product compiler. > Why would the developers spend a lot of time and effort, even if Intel > pays for it, looking backwards? They probably won't bother to recompile older versions, but if they have new versions of the software in the works, then this may represent a very lucrative reduction in their R&D costs. I wouldn't feel too sorry for Intel for having to fork over this much cash for other people's developments, since it was their fault for purposefully screwing up in the first place. Yousuf Khan
From: Yousuf Khan on 7 Jan 2010 17:29 Robert Myers wrote: > Keep it up, Yousuf. You're doing a great job of making both you and > AMD look foolish and vindictive. Keep it up, Robert. You're doing a great job of licking Intel's nether regions. > Wouldn't it be great if Microsoft had a competitor like this. > > They could recompense all of us for all of the time we have spent > trying to deal with their crippled software. Microsoft killed all of their competitors already. It was too late for them. Fortunately, Intel got caught early enough. Of course, "early enough" in this case, means after only 25 years of having it their own way. I can think of at least 5 Intel x86 competitors over the years, all of whom are now gone. AMD is the last one left after all of this time. Cyrix is gone, NexGen is gone, Transmeta gone, NEC gone, etc. > So Intel made sure its compiler worked for its own processors but > wasn't so careful with AMD. Like no one else in the business who's in > a hurry and has limited resources does similar? That's the spin-doctor way of making the truth more palatable. Intel wasn't simply "not careful", it was deliberate. In order to detect instruction set instructions for processors, Intel's own documentation said, all you need to do is detect certain flags in a register which are either turned on or turned off depending on whether an instruction set is supported or not. Nothing more, nothing less. What Intel did instead was detect whether the processor returned, "GenuineIntel" in the CPUID, and if it did, then it went to check the flags. You have no need to check "GenuineIntel" to look for the instruction set flags. > Bottom line, if you had your way: Yousuf happy, lawyers rich, industry > devastated. Good job. The industry is already a moribund devastated industry ever since Intel took up its position as the Mammoth that stands on this ground. PCs have not evolved much since the 80's. With the Mammoth moved out of the way, new life can take hold now. Lawyers will be rich no matter what. Yousuf Khan
From: Robert Myers on 7 Jan 2010 17:55
On Jan 7, 5:29 pm, Yousuf Khan <bbb...(a)spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote: > Robert Myers wrote: > > Keep it up, Yousuf. You're doing a great job of making both you and > > AMD look foolish and vindictive. > > Keep it up, Robert. You're doing a great job of licking Intel's nether > regions. > Time to start reporting you for abuse, too? Crude speech is the last resort of the desperate. > > Wouldn't it be great if Microsoft had a competitor like this. > > > They could recompense all of us for all of the time we have spent > > trying to deal with their crippled software. > > Microsoft killed all of their competitors already. It was too late for > them. Fortunately, Intel got caught early enough. Of course, "early > enough" in this case, means after only 25 years of having it their own way. > > I can think of at least 5 Intel x86 competitors over the years, all of > whom are now gone. AMD is the last one left after all of this time. > Cyrix is gone, NexGen is gone, Transmeta gone, NEC gone, etc. > > > So Intel made sure its compiler worked for its own processors but > > wasn't so careful with AMD. Like no one else in the business who's in > > a hurry and has limited resources does similar? > > That's the spin-doctor way of making the truth more palatable. Intel > wasn't simply "not careful", it was deliberate. In order to detect > instruction set instructions for processors, Intel's own documentation > said, all you need to do is detect certain flags in a register which are > either turned on or turned off depending on whether an instruction set > is supported or not. Nothing more, nothing less. What Intel did instead > was detect whether the processor returned, "GenuineIntel" in the CPUID, > and if it did, then it went to check the flags. You have no need to > check "GenuineIntel" to look for the instruction set flags. > Listen. I'm one of the bluntest people on the face of the earth. I don't do with BS, not yours, not Intel's, not anybody's. If you want to find out how blunt I can be, eventually you will. Some weenie at Intel did what was easiest, or some manager at Intel told a weenie to do it some way or other. Get a life, Yousuf. There was no board meeting about this. I'm sick of your finger-pointing. Push hard enough, and I'll speculate as to where all this moral certainty comes from, any you won't like it one little bit. > > Bottom line, if you had your way: Yousuf happy, lawyers rich, industry > > devastated. Good job. > > The industry is already a moribund devastated industry ever since Intel > took up its position as the Mammoth that stands on this ground. PCs have > not evolved much since the 80's. With the Mammoth moved out of the way, > new life can take hold now. > That's not spin. That's delusion. Robert. |