NVIDIA, Mentor Graphics May Harm GCC

[tarceri]

I don't see how it's a dependency. GCC receives source code as an input, processes it, and outputs a file. It's none of GCC's concern what the file is used for. You're free to compile proprietary software with GCC, for instance. So I don't see any difference between the two cases here. Besides, you can't be sure that in the future there won't be open PTX parsers.

"Besides, you can't be sure that in the future there won't be open PTX parsers." So your a glass half full kinda guy

Unless GCC does have to actually rely on proprietary software to produce the output? I don't know enough about this issue to comment on that, but at least the information you provided so far doesn't prove that it really is a dependency.

Its not a dependency to create the output but its pretty useless on its own. A dependency is required in order to use the output.

[GreatEmerald]

One thing is for certain that I personally learned, you can't use both. Windows constantly locks you in and makes you come back, only when you fully break free of Windows can you truly use a different OS. Same thing applies to any addiction.

Actually, many people dual-boot, myself included. There are some rare programs that you absolutely need and that don't run on Wine or even in a virtual machine (in my case it's UnrealEd). I haven't started Windows for a few months now, and when I do it's for a very short amount of time, but it's still there.

I also have a tablet which has PowerVR graphics and a proprietary screen implementation, which causes it to fail to turn off the screen and thus also go to sleep. I have Linux installed on it, but I mostly use Windows, since I absolutely need the battery life.

So there are cases where you can use both and not be bound to Windows.

[GreatEmerald]

Its not a dependency to create the output but its pretty useless on its own. A dependency is required in order to use the output.

And a proprietary application compiled with GCC can have a dependency on external proprietary libraries (probably even the same CUDA libraries), without which the program won't run. Again it's of no concern to GCC.

[blackiwid]

I don't see any anger in my posts, nor did I call anyone names. You are the one talking about "retards" and you see anger where there is none. I simply have a different opinion which you obviously don't like.

k that proofs it, you are a kid <10 years old, because children don't understand ironie, like you. As if I would have called them retards, thats ironie rofl. but ok its not your fault that a kid dont understand ironie is just a thing that is normal not his fault. Maybe your parents should protect you from yourself posting such stuff on random websites with fanatics on it. (thats ironie too, I try to write that explizitly now as long as you kiddo write here)

[Eisnefaust]

Do not gloryfy AMD

Well, AMD might offer some documentation of their ISA, but compared to the speed the development for real open source UNIX like systems, mainly the *BSD lines, is going on, there is a lot to reconsider and there is also a lot to be unraveled as PR from AMD. OPEN in strictu sensu means the support for all platforms. And this is not exclusively the pool of Linux derivates around.

On the first sight, I aggree with the statement of the compiler-source Larrabel comments on. On the second view, what is wrong with OpenACC in GCC? Look at LLVM. LLVM has its backend hardware driver, generating code for a specific target. If OpenACC is a concept that has an initial single-target only, it is a starting point. I have no ideas about how restricted the concept of implementing the OpenACC standard into GCC (or even LLVM/CLANG) and restricting the use only for the nVidia PTX backend. I doubt that the design would be that poisenous nVidia-only. As I said, if even AMD would support the development of opensource the way it is painted to the outside world by their PR loudspeakers, the today's picture would be different, there wouldn't be only one guy developing code for Linux only (Mesa and X11 seem to be claimed now by the Linux community ...), the same for Intel and their confusing KMS policy.

We all "want to make money", isn't that the so called anglo-american credo? It is natural, that nVidia tries to secure their claim. At the end it is the customers choice how the development will find its course. If customers WANT a more open standard, they have the choice to avoid all non-standards. But in fact, most customers are reeducated stupid consumer mules.

Another example, a bit away from the main subject, but a similar message: AMD and nVidia cut off double precission facilities from their consumer GPUs. Consumers have to buy expensive professional GPUs if they want to have scientific numbercrunching power, but most of those GPGPU devices, especially from nVidia, do have limited video capabilities - so it is wise to buy another energy consuming GPU for the very same computer (if it is a workstation). I never realised why I should spent 600 or even 900 EUR for a gaming card with all the neat double precision capabilities gone or not supported. Highend in price but lowend in the real useful capabilities? As a customer, I can (and do) reject those devices and stay with cheap GPUs, although I'd spend more money if I could use it for other purposes as only video displaying.

And at this very moment, nVidia ist the only choice if someone uses one of the *BSD UNIX systems since nVidia offers high quality, CUDA ripped-off, drivers. This decision was made when AMD didn't offer BSD BLOBs for their crap and the opensource drivers crashed nearly every day the HD49XX, HD46XX and the HD47XX GPUs we had a lot of at the department that time.

Stop bashing nVidia.

[Temar]

k that proofs it, you are a kid <10 years old, because children don't understand ironie, like you. As if I would have called them retards, thats ironie rofl. but ok its not your fault that a kid dont understand ironie is just a thing that is normal not his fault. Maybe your parents should protect you from yourself posting such stuff on random websites with fanatics on it. (thats ironie too, I try to write that explizitly now as long as you kiddo write here)

lol, nice try. Did you already run out of arguments?

Could my failure in understanding your ironie simply be a language barrier problem?

[log0]

And a proprietary application compiled with GCC can have a dependency on external proprietary libraries (probably even the same CUDA libraries), without which the program won't run. Again it's of no concern to GCC.

With current gcc targets (real ISA) you can have a fully open source stack/os. This virtual ISA (PTX) target constrains you to platforms supported by nvidia drivers (and maybe even certain driver versions depending on nvidias discretion). Which makes it kinda less useful for GNU I guess.

[blackiwid]

lol, nice try. Did you already run out of arguments?

Could my failure in understanding your ironie simply be a language barrier problem?

than maybe you should not post on enlgish sites if you dont understand the answers. Maybe you did not understand the article then too?
I even set one time the retards in "" thats also in other languages a clear sign that I did not meant it really.

To arguments you bring no, only that you think thats ok what nvidia makes others find it not ok, just let it that way...

I read no real argument, maybe Michael does overdue or mix to much personal oppinion into articles, so what. Its his right, there are no juristiction against such stuff, its his site, deal with it or don't use this site.
Maybe I mixed some other abuses from other people here posting comments into my answer its hard to read 6 sites full of bullshit and answer then 20 people to only their concerns. So if I got that wrong with calling him names like the word "nazi" was fallen, that somebody else did that, sorry for that.

[tarceri]

And a proprietary application compiled with GCC can have a dependency on external proprietary libraries (probably even the same CUDA libraries), without which the program won't run. Again it's of no concern to GCC.

Yea that's fine but this is creating functionality in gcc that can only be used with a proprietary part. There is a difference between choosing to used proprietary libraries in your app and compiling with gcc and building functionality into gcc which requires it and I personally think it's a bad trend which I wouldnth want to see.

[Temar]

I read no real argument, maybe Michael does overdue or mix to much personal oppinion into articles, so what. Its his right, there are no juristiction against such stuff, its his site, deal with it or don't use this site.

So basically your only problem is me criticising Michael's article? LOL, better deal with it. If Michael would not want any feedback he could simply close this forum.