Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

NVIDIA, Mentor Graphics May Harm GCC

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

  • log0
    replied
    http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2013-07/msg00428.html
    Thomas Schwinge (Mentor Graphics) talked about their plans to support
    OpenACC in GCC; OpenACC constructs and the enclosed code are transformed
    into NVIDIA's PTX virtual ISA and calls into CUDA libraries.
    So it will depend on PTX and CUDA... As to the possible implications, I'd leave it to the GCC Steering Committee.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Originally posted by tarceri View Post
    Well for starters this issue has nothing to do with using your card there are plenty of ways to make use of your card without using GCC.
    Furthermore, he didn't pay GCC to make his card usable. He paid nvidia, so it's not GCC problem. If there's a problem it's nvidia.

    Leave a comment:


  • tarceri
    replied
    Originally posted by Temar View Post
    And? I also need a Nvidia card to use it in the first place. Oh my god, they are taking my freedom away to use any card I want!!1!11
    Well for starters this issue has nothing to do with using your card there are plenty of ways to make use of your card without using GCC.

    Originally posted by Temar View Post
    How does this take away any of your freedom? Before they had an OpenACC to OpenCL backend. Now they will have an additional OpenACC to PTX backend. This does not take away any freedom, but adds more freedom!
    Maybe you should go do some research on the history of the GNU project and the Free Software Foundation. If such a relaxed view on software freedom had been taken GNU\Linux would not be in such a strong state as it is today and you would likely not be making use of you Nvidia card on anything other than Windows.

    Originally posted by Temar View Post
    I'm with the people who call this article pure FUD. Articles like this are the reason why Michael no longer gets AMD cards. Improved interoperability between open source software and closed source software is never poisonous, as long as it is optional. People who do not want to use this new backend can still decide not to compile it into their gcc and their gcc version will just work fine as before. The gcc compiler as a whole does not depend on the Nvidia driver, only the openacc->ptx backend does.
    Again if the GNU was to cave on its principals so easily free and open software would not be in such a good position today. There would be no one pushing companies to produce more open software. I Nvidia wants to maintain there our fork of GCC that contains this support then great good on them, but if they want to enjoy the benifits of this being merged upstream then the should come to the table and make a real effort to comply to the GNU principals.

    Leave a comment:


  • ldesnogu
    replied
    Originally posted by Jesse2004 View Post
    Hope that Intel would release discrete graphic cards some day. Intel is the only big guy that sincerely supports open source and open standard.
    Sincerely? Come on, this is a big corp, they have an interest in supporting Linux, Android, etc. But I agree they are doing more efforts than all others!

    Leave a comment:


  • Temar
    replied
    Originally posted by tarceri View Post
    Sure GCC would have the open source code to generate PTX but then it has a dependency on the closed source driver to compiler it.
    And? I also need a Nvidia card to use it in the first place. Oh my god, they are taking my freedom away to use any card I want!!1!11

    Originally posted by tarceri View Post
    You are choosing to ignore or belittle the issue because you do not share the same values. Adding support to a FSF project that relies on non-free software may not matter to you but it should matter to the FSF and it should be brought to Nvidias attention. I believe this is what was being referred to as poisonous, once you give in and loosen your values its hard to say no to the next thing that comes along and wants to restrict how free your software is.
    How does this take away any of your freedom? Before they had an OpenACC to OpenCL backend. Now they will have an additional OpenACC to PTX backend. This does not take away any freedom, but adds more freedom!

    I'm with the people who call this article pure FUD. Articles like this are the reason why Michael no longer gets AMD cards. Improved interoperability between open source software and closed source software is never poisonous, as long as it is optional. People who do not want to use this new backend can still decide not to compile it into their gcc and their gcc version will just work fine as before. The gcc compiler as a whole does not depend on the Nvidia driver, only the openacc->ptx backend does.

    Leave a comment:


  • Jesse2004
    replied
    Hope that Intel would release discrete graphic cards some day. Intel is the only big guy that sincerely supports open source and open standard. Nvidia? If I were to consider nividia, sadly that's because there are too few to choose from....

    Leave a comment:


  • ldesnogu
    replied
    While AMD has documented their various generations of GPU ISA, NVIDIA does not provide any documentation on their instruction set architecture. Intel, ARM, and other processor companies also document their ISA publicly. This source had written in a private email, "NVIDIA refuses to publicly disclose their instruction set. They force any company targeting their hardware to use PTX. They claim it's for portability, but that's a lie. AMD's GPU instruction set changes, but they and *EVERYONE* else in the industry publishes their details no problem. The arguments about protecting their IP is just bs.. How can *everyone* else publish the details and open source drivers, but stay in business?"
    As far as I know ARM doesn't provide documentation for their GPUs. Imagination don't either. And Qualcomm don't.

    In fact, I guess only Intel and AMD have provided doc for their instruction set, so Michael's contact seems wrong about everyone publishing documentation...

    Leave a comment:


  • tarceri
    replied
    Originally posted by johnc View Post
    So you're Michael's "source"?
    Haha, no I'm just someone who is interested in making sure people reading/writing these posts understand what's going on. It only takes a little bit of research and common sense to come to these conclusions.

    You have every right not to think this matters, but those concerned with free software should. You might have noticed this news was posted under Free Software news while the LLVM news was under Compiler News.

    Leave a comment:


  • powdigsig
    replied
    Nvidia, what the fuck do you want? Decide or begone!

    Phoronix is great. Steam is great. DRM is great, give me my digital handcuffs please! I'll at least wear them until linux becomes mainstream...am I contradictory now?

    Btw, I think Nvidia has lots of trolls in the company itself, it sent them here to troll as they really are angry that Nvidia refuses to stay 'closed source only'(hey it said to Nouveau coders, "hey ask us anything") and as it opens up it may reveal their great incompetence in their coding skills as Nvidia will publish that source code. They went here to vent their frustration that soon it will be proven that they didn't even have a computer science diploma.

    Nvidia of course partway wants to stay as a closed source company, and another little part of it wants to embrace open source. Nvidia, what the fuck do you want anyway?? Make up your mind!! Intel will bust both AMD and Nvidia's asses, we will rule your asses one day with Broadwell! We are ruling your asses now with Haswell so your days are numbered haha!

    Leave a comment:


  • johnc
    replied
    Originally posted by tarceri View Post
    Parallel Thread Execution (PTX) is a pseudo-assembly language. The graphics driver contains a compiler which translates the PTX into a binary code which can be run on the processing cores.

    So yes the PTX compiler is a closed source implementation. Sure GCC would have the open source code to generate PTX but then it has a dependency on the closed source driver to compiler it.



    The point is GCC is a free software foundation project LLVM isnt. Whether you believe in the principles of the foundation or not it is a big deal for a FSF project to become reliant on non-free software no matter how small that reliance may be.



    You are choosing to ignore or belittle the issue because you do not share the same values. Adding support to a FSF project that relies on non-free software may not matter to you but it should matter to the FSF and it should be brought to Nvidias attention. I believe this is what was being referred to as poisonous, once you give in and loosen your values its hard to say no to the next thing that comes along and wants to restrict how free your software is.
    So you're Michael's "source"?

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X