Page 2 of 11 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 103

Thread: NVIDIA, Mentor Graphics May Harm GCC

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    62

    Default

    Ask the "trusted source" to out their identity, I can guarantee you that person is a coward with no balls, writing poison pen letters with malicious intent.

    I'm glad Nvidia doesn't released their driver source code or GPU documentation, seeing how the Linux community treats hardworking companies that supports it with contempt is enough for me.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    52

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GT220 View Post
    Ask the "trusted source" to out their identity, I can guarantee you that person is a coward with no balls, writing poison pen letters with malicious intent.

    I'm glad Nvidia doesn't released their driver source code or GPU documentation, seeing how the Linux community treats hardworking companies that supports it with contempt is enough for me.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    167

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tarceri View Post
    So do you have a source that this is not true? I'm assuming it should be pretty easy to confirm.
    Don't waste your time, he is an obvious troll, almost all his post are defending Nvidia and bashing Nouveau and AMD.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    62

    Default

    That's all the Linux retard community can do, post useless reaction images and defending poorly written open source drivers.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    266

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GT220 View Post
    That's all the Linux retard community can do, post useless reaction images and defending poorly written open source drivers.
    Well its much better then any of the childish comments you have made so far.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Outthere, NSW, Australia
    Posts
    415

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tarceri View Post
    Well its much better then any of the childish comments you have made so far.
    Hear, here!

    The greatest irony is his conception that open-source poeple dont work hard and that nVidia does. Classic. It's as if free labour after work hours (unless you're paid to work on open-stuffs) is less than worthless, and people doing the exact same thing on closed-stuffs are a race unto themselves. Mmmm, I can smell their rosy turds from here.

    Delish!

  7. #17

    Default

    If the information pans out not to be true I will gladly out this source, but he has always been spot on and his work has also sponsored many projects/developers, etc. but anyhow all information has been correct in this article about NVIDIA and it's ISA.

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    845

    Default

    Hmm... it's very early morning here so I may be missing something, but can someone explain to me how OpenACC will 'force multiple closed source dependencies' on GCC?

    PTX is not 'closed source', it's an undocumented instruction set, however if OpenACC were to be supported in GCC, and it's done through intermediary PTX code generation, how would that possibly be part of GCC without being documented by it's open source implementation ? (it has to be open source to be included in GCC to begin with)

    Of course, if this has been about LLVM getting OpenACC support, Michael would have spun this story into something super-positive. Also when LLVM got a PTX backend from NVidia there was no talk from Michael about how 'LLVM is being sold to NVidia', instead it was described as 'new possibilities are opened up'.

    Now it somehow turned into 'Mentor Graphics sells GCC to NVidia', even if the above 'rumour' about PTX is true, how on earth is GCC 'sold to NVidia'?

    GCC is not going to become dependant on OpenACC either way, it's an option like openmp. You do not have to use it. And again, unless the OpenACC implementation, including whatever intermediate code it end up generating, is not fully open sourced it won't be part of GCC.

    So what are these multiple closed source dependencies Michael?

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    MA, USA
    Posts
    1,485

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Michael View Post
    If the information pans out not to be true I will gladly out this source, but he has always been spot on and his work has also sponsored many projects/developers, etc. but anyhow all information has been correct in this article about NVIDIA and it's ISA.
    I'm not trying to be a suck-up, but you'd think by now readers here either know when to take something with a grain of salt or know that you have yet damage your credibility. I've been visiting this website just about every day for several years and I got to say, a lot of the community here is pointlessly negative. I'm not sure what it takes to get more credibility, but I think getting the Source Engine benchmarks will help.

  10. #20
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    1,615

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tarceri View Post
    I know you are just trying to troll as per usual but I will answer as if you were making a serious comment. It's pretty clear from the post that the worry is gcc will be relying an underlying proprietary closed source system which gcc has no control over. This type of arrangement pretty much always ends up screwing over the open system sometime in the future, undocumented futures, unfixable bugs, totally dropping the assembly language from the binary driver in favour of some new wizz bad thing are just some things that pop to mind that could be a concern to gcc relying on this.
    I'm not sure why you think this is such a concern. Are the maintainers of GCC not capable of including and excluding as they wish?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •