Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Loongson Continues Working On LoongArch For Linux, But It's Mostly Copying MIPS Code

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

  • gigi
    replied
    obviously china is doing what other developed countries did in these 40 years. does anyone remember when US was the sole author of encryption standard for using with government.

    we are disposable to corporations and elected governments in almost every country.

    in another ex president words "military-industrial complex"...

    Leave a comment:


  • coder
    replied
    Originally posted by mdedetrich View Post
    Sure but Linux/GNU doesn't support every architecture under the sun and the history of computing, lines have to be drawn. Linux has dropped architectures in the past because no one really uses them
    I think that's mainly an issue that no one really maintained them! The N64 example is very apt. That's a case where perhaps a few dozen people might actually go to the trouble of booting Linux on a N64, but as long as someone is willing to maintain that platform & it's not burdensome for the rest of the kernel, that's apparently good enough.

    Originally posted by mdedetrich View Post
    in regards to accepting a new architectures there needs to be an appropriate part of support, and I personally don't think Loongson passes this threshold.
    What do you mean by "an appropriate part of support"? And where is the threshold?

    Leave a comment:


  • s_j_newbury
    replied
    Originally posted by mdedetrich View Post

    Sure but Linux/GNU doesn't support every architecture under the sun and the history of computing, lines have to be drawn. Linux has dropped architectures in the past because no one really uses them and in regards to accepting a new architectures there needs to be an appropriate part of support, and I personally don't think Loongson passes this threshold.
    I'm sorry, but that's just silly. China has arguably the largest internal domestic market in the world, perhaps second only to the US but certainly on a higher growth curve. If indeed the policy of the CCP is to internally source CPUs to avoid questionable foreign products (which it is), there's going to be plenty of users, even if it's only the Chinese Public Sector. Furthermore, there clearly are volunteers to maintain it, somewhat overzealous in fact with wanting to fork the kernel MIPS architecture code!

    Why is there so much anti-China rhetoric on a technology site anyway?

    Leave a comment:


  • mdedetrich
    replied
    Originally posted by kpedersen View Post

    This is kind of what open-source, GNU and Linux is all about.

    If Linux can support the old N64 hardware, why not an internal Chinese processor which has many more users? Also, why should Apple have their shite internal processor supported but not one from a Chinese company?

    Yes, useless for many (i.e getting hold of a Loongson laptop was extremely difficult for me) but Linux really is a big bargain bucket of hardware support. It seems a bit messy but ultimately is one of its major strengths.

    Plus looking at some reviews such as this: https://www.techspot.com/news/90544-...rst-ryzen.html
    It is certainly looking "good enough" as a viable day to day processor.
    Sure but Linux/GNU doesn't support every architecture under the sun and the history of computing, lines have to be drawn. Linux has dropped architectures in the past because no one really uses them and in regards to accepting a new architectures there needs to be an appropriate part of support, and I personally don't think Loongson passes this threshold.

    Leave a comment:


  • ddriver
    replied
    Originally posted by coder View Post
    No, I'm not. The ISA dictates a lot about how the kernel, compilers, and libraries interact with the CPUs implementing it. TLBs, interrupt-handling, memory-consistency, cache control, atomics, paging, context switching, etc. all exist as part of the ISA definition.

    And does anyone actually use your toy, at least for anything beyond microcontrollers?
    What you are overlooking is the component of legacy. Computers have changed quite a lot since the olden days, what people use computers for has changed even more so. Your basic grasp on ISA design appears to be vaguely based on all the mud legacy ISAs had to be dragged through to accommodate contemporary computing requirements, rather than on what a contemporary ISA needs to be.

    Today you don't design an ISA in the dark about what the future may bring, at this point computing is a mature subject, it has peaked, and it is more available than ever, why we get over a dozen new hardware architectures every year. You can scrap all the legacy garbage, which was introduced for reasons that are no longer relevant. This eliminates a lot of complexity and overheads. What might look over-complicated from the perspective of a basic "coder" is more akin muscle memory for a proficient system designer.

    Kinda like doing practically anything - those that have never done it struggle incapable to do it for a long, long time, whereas to those that have done it enough to attain proficiency it is a triviality. It would take a very modest skill set, in terms of both diversity and level of proficiency, to somehow remain ignorant of that little fact, as you evidently have. You are but an infant struggling to walk more than a couple of steps before tumbling down, thus the concept of running seems like something extremely advanced, for reasons unknown to an infant.

    As for my "toy" - it can actually model and simulate an arbitrary level of features, complexity and optimizations for every platform. It will either find a way to accomplish an abstract task given the target platform capabilities or request you to provide a custom implementation. And again, do not expect a self-proclaimed "coder" to have the level of knowledge and experience to fully appreciate that, as you clearly don't.

    So I am kind of curious as to what your work involves, in order to put you on a standing where you get to evaluate my work as a toy? Care to disclose your expertise? Unless of course, you were just being condescending because you don't have anything better.

    Leave a comment:


  • Developer12
    replied
    Originally posted by ddriver View Post

    Hello, it is 2021 calling...

    Today it is fairly easy to roll out a toolchain. Heck, it is getting "pedestrian" level to design semiconductors, with modern design tools, you can simply import and interconnect IP blocks and have that manufactured if you can afford to.

    Today it would be stupid to resort to anything legacy, much less bother to reverse-engineer a complex design, not for the sake of manufacturing and selling products anyway. It is so much cleaner and easier to start from scratch.
    Ignoring that all of that only looks easy if you've never done it yourself, it also costs an enormous amount of man power just to shuffle the paper around. This is why the Linux kernel devs should be resistant to merging another architecture which is just a duplication of the MIPS code.
    Last edited by Developer12; 25 August 2021, 08:49 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • uxmkt
    replied
    Originally posted by phoronix View Post
    Phoronix: Loongson Continues Working On LoongArch For Linux, But It's Mostly Copying MIPS Code
    In danger of stating the obvious, the Chinese are stereotypically known for copying all the things.
    But maybe there is something a bit more than just the base MIPS ISA? AMD processors of today can still run i386 code, but somehow the world stopped calling it i386 in 2003 because they added long mode and a bunch of instructions. Ccome to speak of it, the (somewhat short-lived) k1om/l1om architectures was basically Pentium plus a bit on top too.

    Leave a comment:


  • hyperchaotic
    replied
    Originally posted by Pheckphul View Post
    Of course it's a MIPS ripoff. China's tech industry still hasn't risen to the level of inventing from whole cloth anything that can compete with x86/POWER/ARM. They haven't funneled enough stolen IP back to the fatherland to accomplish that yet. 🤡
    I don't think you can call it a ripoff. Loongson Technology Corp. Ltd. have licensed the MIPS32 and MIPS64 architectures from MIPS Technologies, Inc. fair and square. I don't know why they don't want to call it MIPS, maybe because they've been evolving it.

    Leave a comment:


  • coder
    replied
    Originally posted by ddriver View Post
    You are confusing ISA design with hardware and software implementation of a compliant system.
    No, I'm not. The ISA dictates a lot about how the kernel, compilers, and libraries interact with the CPUs implementing it. TLBs, interrupt-handling, memory-consistency, cache control, atomics, paging, context switching, etc. all exist as part of the ISA definition.

    Originally posted by ddriver View Post
    I currently happen to work on a tool that allows to define and simulate different hardware platforms and generate native assemblies out of the definitions and IR code format that I have personally designed. So I think I can do one better than "write a compiler" - writing a compilers compiler.
    And does anyone actually use your toy, at least for anything beyond microcontrollers?

    Leave a comment:


  • ddriver
    replied
    Originally posted by coder View Post
    Yes, actually.

    You clearly haven't written a compiler or done any substantial degree of kernel development. There's a lot more that goes into an ISA than deciding what to name the instructions, how many operands they should have, and choosing a binary instruction format.
    You clearly have no idea of having an idea who has done what. You are confusing ISA design with hardware and software implementation of a compliant system. The ISA is clearly defined as a specification that is not bound to any particular implementation. And both hardware and software implementations are entirely different fields that have absolutely nothing to do with ISA design.

    Also, I currently happen to work on a tool that allows to define and simulate different hardware platforms and generate native assemblies out of the definitions and IR code format that I have personally designed. So I think I can do one better than "write a compiler" - writing a compilers compiler.

    A design that can conform abstract instructions to ANY ISA, a wee bit more complicated than designing any ISA. Also, requires a fair amount of existing ISA knowledge. You may not be able to appreciate the gravity here.
    Last edited by ddriver; 25 August 2021, 11:37 AM.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X