Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: Apple Open-Sources Their 64-bit ARM LLVM Back-End

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    14,359

    Default Apple Open-Sources Their 64-bit ARM LLVM Back-End

    Phoronix: Apple Open-Sources Their 64-bit ARM LLVM Back-End

    Back in September of last year after Apple unveiled the iPhone 5S smart-phone with a 64-bit processor, they said they would ultimately open-source their 64-bit ARM compiler back-end... A half-year later, we're finally seeing this code that yields another AArch64 back-end for LLVM...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTY0NzE

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    209

    Default

    Now if only Apple had developed their 64-bit llvm backend as open source, in cooperation with the rest of the LLVM developers from the start, now there would be only one implementation...

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    412

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by M1kkko View Post
    Now if only Apple had developed their 64-bit llvm backend as open source, in cooperation with the rest of the LLVM developers from the start, now there would be only one implementation...
    You don't get much on this issue. Neither Google, nor any member of the LLVM community in the business of making money is open sourcing their stacks until the Legal Staff clears them.

    Then again, Apple is funding the bulk of the entire project, and now this stack which has everyone peeing themselves in overjoy doesn't seem to not realize the difference between licensing structures.

    There didn't just add the LLVM Target for ARM64, but are adding Clang, libc++, Compiler-RT and LLDB. In short, they've done all the heavy lifting and are giving it back for all to leverage.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    1,111

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by M1kkko View Post
    Now if only Apple had developed their 64-bit llvm backend as open source, in cooperation with the rest of the LLVM developers from the start, now there would be only one implementation...
    Soon there well be only one implementation as well. Either one makes it or they'll be somehow merged.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    313

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by M1kkko View Post
    Now if only Apple had developed their 64-bit llvm backend as open source, in cooperation with the rest of the LLVM developers from the start, now there would be only one implementation...
    Really this is nonsense! There was no way for Apple to develop this facility without letting the rest of the world know where they where going processor wise. The fact that Apple has gotten a solid 1 year lead on the rest of the industry demonstrates that they did the right thing as a company. The reality is the business world is a dog eat dog environment, your company won't survive without innovation and keeping a leg up on the competition. You can't do that if you let all your secrets out.

    Beyond that the last thing you want in the compiler world is a development process that hurts innovation and new ideas. As the two code bases merge they will each become significantly better due to the differing approaches to a solution. Eventually there will be one compiler in the Toolchain that hopefully borrows the best from both development threads.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    313

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marc Driftmeyer View Post
    You don't get much on this issue. Neither Google, nor any member of the LLVM community in the business of making money is open sourcing their stacks until the Legal Staff clears them.
    I sometimes think these comments come from people that have never work for a reasonably large company. I would imagine that along with legal there are upper management hurdles, QC issues and other boxes to be checked off before they go public.
    Then again, Apple is funding the bulk of the entire project, and now this stack which has everyone peeing themselves in overjoy doesn't seem to not realize the difference between licensing structures.
    Really peeing themselves. Exciting yes but really it is just a compiler.

    What is possible more interesting here is the support of Linux. It isn't an afterthought instead it looks like Apple people are promoting it as a feature and an important one worth highlighting. Makes me wonder what is up at Apple Linux wise.
    There didn't just add the LLVM Target for ARM64, but are adding Clang, libc++, Compiler-RT and LLDB. In short, they've done all the heavy lifting and are giving it back for all to leverage.
    People often dismiss what Apple has done here but it is huge. There is simply no way that the LLVM stack would be where it is today without the support of Apple. They have made massive progress in a very short time. That being said we don't want to dismiss the help of others such as Google that have put very significant effort into parts of the stack. LLVM is very much open source with a Wide contributor base.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    210

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post
    Makes me wonder what is up at Apple Linux wise.
    A few years ago in a talk Greg KH mentioned that apple uses linux on newly developed iphone hardware to see if it works.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    146

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mlau View Post
    A few years ago in a talk Greg KH mentioned that apple uses linux on newly developed iphone hardware to see if it works.
    More likely the engineers expected to upstream the code and ensured it would work. They are probably angry with management that they were not allowed to upstream it earlier.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    313

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by carewolf View Post
    More likely the engineers expected to upstream the code and ensured it would work. They are probably angry with management that they were not allowed to upstream it earlier.
    What do they have to be angers about? It was fully expected that the code would be released, Apple publicly said it would happen. Beyond that, you don't work for a corporation in ignorance, you realize that things take time and that you don't have 100% control over your work.

    I highly doubt that what you suggest has any basis in fact, but if that feeling is present in any engineer at Apple then clearly that engineer needs to work someplace else.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    146

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post
    What do they have to be angers about? It was fully expected that the code would be released, Apple publicly said it would happen. Beyond that, you don't work for a corporation in ignorance, you realize that things take time and that you don't have 100% control over your work.

    I highly doubt that what you suggest has any basis in fact, but if that feeling is present in any engineer at Apple then clearly that engineer needs to work someplace else.
    That sounds incredible arrogant and like an outright malicious way of thinking.

Posting Permissions

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