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 11 Jan 2010 15:52 Bill Davidsen wrote: > I read an interesting post on this which said that the logic is this: if > the CPU is Intel, the flags are checked, because the meaning of each bit > is known. If not, the meaning of some bits as used by other vendors is > not identical to Intel usage. Therefore, Intel chose to not use any > vector stuff beyond mmx (or sse) rather than try to handle other > vendor's use. Clearly you can call this an excuse, and Intel probably > could have checked for at least some of the other vendors, assuming that > within a vendor the bits are stable. Yes, I can see them using that excuse too. The major performance enhancing features at question here, such as the SSE instructions are not in conflict. Anyways, this is not just a matter for the FTC to take up, this is also a part of Intel & AMD's private settlement: Intel has agreed to give up this practice _from now on_. The FTC however is looking at it from a consumer point of view, and it feels it has the right to ask Intel to compensate customers who bought Intel's compilers without knowing about this in the past. > I know there is/was one CPU vendor who used the bits Intel classified as > either "unused" or "RFU" to mean something, but I don't remember what. > There was code in some program I used which checked that. For modern > 32/64 bit CPUs I doubt that's an issue, but I don't really know that > everyone uses bits the way Intel does. It's certainly possible, but AMD used to use flags way outside of Intel's flags functions. For example, for Intel-style flags you might have had to put $1000 into a register, and for AMD-style flags you would have needed to put $8000 into the same register. When checking for Intel features on AMD processors, you simply used the Intel values and you got back the Intel results. As it turns out, now that AMD is responsible for the 64-bit x86 instructions, Intel now supports the AMD-style flags too. That's because a lot of the 64-bit features come from the AMD flags. > Vendors in Pentium days (from memory), AMD, Cyrix, Transmeta, SiS, and > at least one other. Hope someone remembers this stuff more clearly. Those were a bygone era, even before the CPUID was available. In those days, you had to use indirect method to figure out which processor you were running on, even within the Intel stable. You'd use things like self-modifying code to measure the size of instruction prefetch queues which might have been different between processor families, etc. I remember writing such routines in assembly myself. Once the CPUID instruction was introduced this all went away. Cyrix made a Pentium-class processor, which didn't support the Pentium instruction set instructions. So for all intents and purposes, the Cyrix looked just like a really fast 486. > In any case, if that claim is true, it's still a very dubious reason to > avoid a more thorough check. FTC is talking about making Intel license x86 to anybody who wants to pay for it. I am figuring that this is the start of a "de jure" rather than a "de facto" standards-based x86 instruction set. AMD will have to throw in the x64 instructions too. So we might actually see x86 processors from Nvidia or others if this ruling goes through. Yousuf Khan
From: Robert Myers on 11 Jan 2010 21:01 On Jan 11, 3:52 pm, Yousuf Khan <bbb...(a)spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote: > > FTC is talking about making Intel license x86 to anybody who wants to > pay for it. I am figuring that this is the start of a "de jure" rather > than a "de facto" standards-based x86 instruction set. AMD will have to > throw in the x64 instructions too. > > So we might actually see x86 processors from Nvidia or others if this > ruling goes through. You need to get a grip, Yousuf. http://www.internetnews.com/hardware/article.php/3855711/Intel+FTC+Case+Overblown+Says+Analyst.htm Intel must not have given enough money to Obama's campaign, but none of this overreaching is going to fly. Robert.
From: Sebastian Kaliszewski on 12 Jan 2010 08:03 Robert Myers wrote: [...] > 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. Oh, I'm so affraid. ROTFL! > Some weenie at Intel did what was easiest, or some manager at Intel > told a weenie to do it some way or other. Nonsense. Making it that way was not the easiest way, as "GenuineIntel" string check is a superflous one. Yet it's conceivalbe that someone made it that way without deeper consideration. What is unconceivalbe is that Intel kept the thing for many years in face of complains. Even worse, in later versions they removed the option to bypass the "feature". > Get a life, Yousuf. There > was no board meeting about this. If that was just what you try make it was they would have fixed it. It might begin as innocent mistake, but refusal to fix it promotes it into deliberate action. Wheteher it was delibarate from the beginning or they just deliberately didn't fix it, it doesn't change the outcome. > 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. Uh, oh. > >>> 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. And who is talking about delusion? LOL! -- "Never underestimate the power of human stupidity" -- L. Lang -- http://www.tajga.org -- (some photos from my travels)
From: Robert Myers on 12 Jan 2010 17:11 On Jan 12, 8:03 am, Sebastian Kaliszewski <s.bez_sp...(a)remove.this.informa.and.that.pl> wrote: > Robert Myers wrote: > > [...] > > > 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. > > Oh, I'm so affraid. ROTFL! > I wasn't addressing you. I'll never forget you as making one of the most unintentionally funny posts ever on Usenet--announcing that there was no need to worry about your managing risk, as you worked for financial clients--just as the world of finance was bringing on a disastrous worldwide meltdown because of its fecklessness in managing risk. > > Some weenie at Intel did what was easiest, or some manager at Intel > > told a weenie to do it some way or other. > > Nonsense. Making it that way was not the easiest way, as "GenuineIntel" > string check is a superflous one. > > Yet it's conceivalbe that someone made it that way without deeper > consideration. What is unconceivalbe is that Intel kept the thing for > many years in face of complains. Even worse, in later versions they > removed the option to bypass the "feature". > No one, least of all me, is claiming that Intel is an innocent babe in the woods. Every individual and every business is consciously or unconsciously biased toward decisions and actions that favor their own needs, sometimes to the great detriment of others. Intel got caught on this one, and, as I said in my very first post on the issue, they deserve to get burned, if only for being so arrogant as to leave off a disclaimer. > > Get a life, Yousuf. There > > was no board meeting about this. > > If that was just what you try make it was they would have fixed it. It > might begin as innocent mistake, but refusal to fix it promotes it into > deliberate action. > > Wheteher it was delibarate from the beginning or they just deliberately > didn't fix it, it doesn't change the outcome. > > > 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. > > Uh, oh. > Moral thinking is culturally-bound. An astonishing fraction of Americans pay lip service to the (false) notion of universal moral absolutes, but, by and large, the moral landscape of the US is pragmatic, not absolute. Introducing absolute moral considerations into a discussion about commerce as if they belonged there isn't unheard of in this culture, but it is largely foreign to it. The question is not: would God approve, but, was there a contract, real or implied, and was it fulfilled or not. In this case, Intel created an implied contract by the promises it made for its compiler and it failed to fulfill the terms of the contract. Happens every day in commercial transactions large and small. End of story. > > > >>> 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. > > And who is talking about delusion? LOL! > The semiconductor industry is "mature." That's why it's moribund, not because of anything Intel has done or not done. That all industries go through a cycle of growth and maturation is widely-accepted business school logic. Robert.
From: Bill Davidsen on 13 Jan 2010 18:32
Robert Myers wrote: > On Jan 12, 8:03 am, Sebastian Kaliszewski > Moral thinking is culturally-bound. An astonishing fraction of > Americans pay lip service to the (false) notion of universal moral > absolutes, but, by and large, the moral landscape of the US is > pragmatic, not absolute. Introducing absolute moral considerations > into a discussion about commerce as if they belonged there isn't > unheard of in this culture, but it is largely foreign to it. The > question is not: would God approve, but, was there a contract, real or > implied, and was it fulfilled or not. In this case, Intel created an > implied contract by the promises it made for its compiler and it > failed to fulfill the terms of the contract. Happens every day in > commercial transactions large and small. End of story. > You mean like it's immoral for a home owner to walk away from an underwater mortgage, but not immoral for the bank to sell the mortgage knowing it will enter foreclosure? >> >>>>> 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. >> And who is talking about delusion? LOL! >> > The semiconductor industry is "mature." That's why it's moribund, not > because of anything Intel has done or not done. That all industries > go through a cycle of growth and maturation is widely-accepted > business school logic. > Clearly not in this group. :-( |