Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

In-Fighting Continues Over OpenACC In GCC

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

  • In-Fighting Continues Over OpenACC In GCC

    Phoronix: In-Fighting Continues Over OpenACC In GCC

    Last week I wrote about OpenACC 2.0 being worked on for GCC complete with NVIDIA GPU acceleration support. While it's quite exciting on the surface and great to see the open-source compilers supporting more parallel programming standards, underneath it's not necessarily a bright story. Here's an update...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTUyMjA

  • #2
    Just because Mentor graphics sold out - someone in the gcc community should have the guts to stand up and point out the problems with what's going on here..
    He who throws stones.... someone should have the "guts" to reveal their concerns publicly and not hide behind the anonymity of being a "confidential source".

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by deanjo View Post
      He who throws stones.... someone should have the "guts" to reveal their concerns publicly and not hide behind the anonymity of being a "confidential source".
      Why? I don't care who he is as long as his concerns are valid. This is not a popularity contest.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by deanjo View Post
        He who throws stones.... someone should have the "guts" to reveal their concerns publicly and not hide behind the anonymity of being a "confidential source".
        Why? I don't care who he is as long as his concerns are valid. This is not a popularity contest. If what he says is not valid, provide arguments against it, it's that simple.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by wargames View Post
          Why? I don't care who he is as long as his concerns are valid. This is not a popularity contest.
          This. The messenger is irrelevant, only the message matters.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by curaga View Post
            This. The messenger is irrelevant, only the message matters.
            Someone who doesn't have the "guts" to publicly voice their concerns shouldn't be ragging on others for not doing so.


            Practice what you preach.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by deanjo View Post
              Someone who doesn't have the "guts" to publicly voice their concerns shouldn't be ragging on others for not doing so.

              Practice what you preach.
              I think that's a bit harsh, in that only the GCC devs actually have the power to block it. If he's not one, he would gain nothing by labeling it under his name, to the contrary: it would enable personal attacks, as shown in the previous thread.

              (was that last comment aimed at me? I do practise this, I speak anonymously when possible and don't disparage others for doing so)

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by wargames View Post
                Why? I don't care who he is as long as his concerns are valid. This is not a popularity contest.
                Well there is a certain irony in criticizing NVIDIA's policy of keeping their code private and not choosing to reveal it to the world, and doing so under the cover of privacy and anonymity. If we don't have a right to know this guy's name, what right do we have to NVIDIA's IP?


                Though after criticizing Michael for the last article I feel it's only fair to commend him on the judiciousness of this one.

                Comment


                • #9
                  So Nvidia haven't got it right again.

                  So Nvidia haven't got it right again. Maybe they should see another couple of f*cks to their faces to get idea. Seriously, how the crap they could be stubborn enough to call their prorpietary crap "open" and think everyone around is a retard and would fail to recognize such a dumb marketing trick? Treating people around as retards shows Nvidia lacks any respect to devs and customers.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    The source is a coward with no balls, everyone should just disregard what he writes, probably works for a competitor.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      I don't get the issue...?

                      NVidia are doing exactly what is ENCOURAGED in the Open Source community: doing what benefits you, that might benefit others.
                      They even said that the PTX thing is just a back-end, meaning that with the framework laid out for the OpenACC front-end, Intel and AMD could come along and write their own back-end to it and help with the front-end.

                      So what if PTX isn't Open? If you don't like it, write an Intel/AMD back-end to it and use their cards. In the meantime, stop getting the the way of *nix users who want this feature on their nvidia cards.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Michael, this is better journalism than usual for you. Good job.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by johnc View Post
                          Well there is a certain irony in criticizing NVIDIA's policy of keeping their code private and not choosing to reveal it to the world, and doing so under the cover of privacy and anonymity. If we don't have a right to know this guy's name, what right do we have to NVIDIA's IP?
                          You've got it all backwards. Hiding his name would be the equivalent of nvidia hiding THEIR name. His message is plain text, that like open source. If he GAVE HIS NAME, but encrypted the message, that would be like being nvidia.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by droidhacker View Post
                            You've got it all backwards. Hiding his name would be the equivalent of nvidia hiding THEIR name. His message is plain text, that like open source. If he GAVE HIS NAME, but encrypted the message, that would be like being nvidia.
                            Thank you. At least one person here has sound logic. I have no idea if the source's claims are valid or not but if he released his name tomorrow, would that magically alter his claims?

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Here's a thing the language support has frontend and backend. Anyone can write backend targeting whatever they want now that the work on frontend is done. Possibly blocking language support only because of its backend means that if someone else wanted to write OpenACC support, they would have to write the frontend code, too.

                              Now let's become more subjective. First, an anonymous source doesn't look very trustworthy, it looks more like a one person's rant which is not open to a discussion. Sure, it would certainly be better if all relevant technologies were free, but currently that can never be true, because of the microcode running on the CPU. The other thing is since when the output of the compiler has to be low-level code? Many compilers outputs bytecode like javac (and Java wasn't always very open), heck, there are even compilers that outputs JavaScript! Targeting PTX is not that different, not to mention that even nVidia itself doesn't target the GPU ISA directly in their software.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X