In-Fighting Continues Over OpenACC In GCC

[phoronix]

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

[deanjo]

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".

[wargames]

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.

[wargames]

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.

[curaga]

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.

[deanjo]

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.

[curaga]

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)

[johnc]

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.

[0xBADCODE]

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.

[GT220]

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