Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

PathScale Open-Sources The EKOPath 4 Compiler Suite

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by markg85 View Post
    I wonder of this will be of benefit to mesa then specially the software renderer! Also, how is the c++ 2011 support and can it build qt for example? Even if it can, will that improve performance?

    this release raises a lot of questions but I'm happy anyway
    I wonder if we'll be able to swap out LLVM for PathScale in the pipe gallium driver

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by spykes View Post
      And why not using Fedora 15 with GCC 4.6 to perform benchmarks?
      It's a bit more bleeding edge than Ubuntu.
      Things like SELinux can slow it down.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by kraftman View Post
        Things like SELinux can slow it down.
        That can be switched off and I don't think it affected the OpenGL tests that much

        Comment


        • #19
          At the time of reading this, the PathScale press release should be available on their web-site and/or PRNewsWire.
          No and/or no.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by markg85 View Post
            ...this release raises a lot of questions but I'm happy anyway
            Yes, that is one of the things that came on my mind at first. Like who payed that?

            Comment


            • #21
              Massive improvement indeed. :O

              Must...compile...whole system...with it...

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by DeiF View Post
                Must...compile...whole system...with it...
                Just thought about the same.
                Anyway where's the release? There's still nothing on pathscale's site...

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by kacperpl1 View Post
                  Just thought about the same.
                  Anyway where's the release? There's still nothing on pathscale's site...
                  There was some miscommunication but I suspect it will be on their site shortly.
                  Michael Larabel
                  http://www.michaellarabel.com/

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Just noticed this on the Pathscale CTO's twitter feed:

                    @michaellarabel - Sorry about the delays, but I'm extremely disappointed in your impatience to respect our delays for the release. --karma
                    Have to agree with him. Michael could have sat silently on this for all this time but instead dripped it out and essentially gave it away (smart move giving out the exact price) so that he could generate four posts of ad-juicing goodness. Pretty scummy.

                    Michael, if you want people to talk to you in confidence, you have to show you'll respect their secrecy when they explicitly ask for it.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by DeiF View Post
                      Massive improvement indeed. :O

                      Must...compile...whole system...with it...
                      That might not be the best thing to do. Remember, the things benchmarked stop far are computational apps and those seem to benefit a lot from it. Buy we both don't have the slightest idea how this will perform on non computational apps like for example kde, gnome, firefox, office suits.. Besides that I'm also interested in the compiled binary size

                      More information is needed.
                      Note, I'm guessing firefox and chrome won't compile.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by oliw View Post
                        Have to agree with him. Michael could have sat silently on this for all this time but instead dripped it out and essentially gave it away (smart move giving out the exact price) so that he could generate four posts of ad-juicing goodness. Pretty scummy.

                        Michael, if you want people to talk to you in confidence, you have to show you'll respect their secrecy when they explicitly ask for it.
                        He was actually okay with the 'leaks', but we just had some miss communications at the last minute. Last I heard was Thursday/Friday/Monday and pinged several times via email on IRC on Friday, Saturday, Sunday, and this morning to see if anything had changed, and hadn't heard, so assumed everything was still on target.
                        Michael Larabel
                        http://www.michaellarabel.com/

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Michael View Post
                          He was actually okay with the 'leaks', but we just had some miss communications at the last minute. Last I heard was Thursday/Friday/Monday and pinged several times via email on IRC on Friday, Saturday, Sunday, and this morning to see if anything had changed, and hadn't heard, so assumed everything was still on target.
                          Then there's perhaps a lesson to be learnt about assumptions. Especially on something that you say has slipped numerous times already.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Michael View Post
                            He was actually okay with the 'leaks', but we just had some miss communications at the last minute. Last I heard was Thursday/Friday/Monday and pinged several times via email on IRC on Friday, Saturday, Sunday, and this morning to see if anything had changed, and hadn't heard, so assumed everything was still on target.
                            Let me quote someone (don't know who buy the line is nice)
                            "assumption its the mother of all screw ups"

                            And I think you made one by posting the article. Not that I mind

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              I'm also interested in how this is done

                              Is it speculatively running code ahead of time on other cpu cores? What are the compile times and binary size like compared to GCC?

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                The Linux kernel can even be built with this high-performance compiler after applying a trivial patch.
                                where can we find this patch please?

                                also, I understand this compiler is Intel® 64 & AMD64 performance tuned but does anybody knows if it will run on 32bit?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X