Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Building Linux With LLVM/Clang Excites The Embedded World

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

  • #11
    Originally posted by schmalzler View Post
    The sanest OS is windows which is proven, because it's the most popular one.
    I hope I don't have to say more...
    the analogy does not fit. windows is chosen without freedom but due to software dependencies.

    gpl has been chosen totally on own decision for new projects. they could have been going bsd license or anything else.

    but i agree that talking about "is better and proven" on that matter is quite useless.
    though, i do not like bsd-like licenses. they are and will be the fall of all free software. they are the license allowing to take and to not give back anything.

    but being "better" is a matter of point of view and nothing proveable.

    Comment


    • #12
      Originally posted by schmalzler View Post
      The sanest OS is windows which is proven, because it's the most popular one.
      You prefer dirt instead of chocolate? It is proven you do, because dirt is much more popular to find.

      Originally posted by schmalzler View Post
      I hope I don't have to say more...
      Given the direction of mindset, if you have it, yes.

      Originally posted by schmalzler View Post
      And talking of LLVM being the holy CRAP - I hope you are aware of gallium using llvm. Open source graphics drivers (besides intel ones) would not be where they are if there wasn't LLVM.
      Intel drivers are the fastest opensource drivers around, running MILES around AMD and Nouveau.

      Originally posted by schmalzler View Post
      // edit:
      and my ignore list grows and grows...
      Soon, it overflows and ends up in yer 'utt. xD

      Originally posted by a user View Post
      windows is chosen without freedom but due to software dependencies.
      Thats incorrect!

      First, research the case of Gary Kildall, perhaps on youtube. Better if you read interview directly from his daughter, because IBM and Microsucks will BS you.
      Second, read about MS agreements with OEM hardware vendors.
      Third, read about MS requirements with OEM sellers (either sell MS-only preinstalled and have discount from ms, or pay full price for windows copy).
      Fourth, the famous "Linux=cancer", and walmart BSing.
      Fifth, read letters about "Embrace, extend, extinguish" directly from MS, essentially how they wanted to destroy Java, but failed. So they reinvented .Net and MONO - its herald-infiltrator for non-ms platforms.

      MS is not choosen due to software dependencies. Its choosen, because its force-preinstalled since first MS-DOS, which in turn was a clone of CP/M, original developer of which was silenced by NDA, Bullsh'd and killed once he decided to talk despite NDA.
      And once they got the monopoly market position by criminal activity, they used other criminal methods to form a dependency knot.

      Which is now falling apart, because and only due to Google. Even destroying Nokia didn't help them, and they stop at nothing for ability to tax the world for their stupid useless blob.
      Last edited by brosis; 03-10-2013, 09:08 AM.

      Comment


      • #13
        Originally posted by a user View Post
        the analogy does not fit. windows is chosen without freedom but due to software dependencies.

        gpl has been chosen totally on own decision for new projects. they could have been going bsd license or anything else.

        but i agree that talking about "is better and proven" on that matter is quite useless.
        I was about changing "windows" to "christianity", because religion probably fits better when talking about licenses

        And - as we know - GPL has different versions; just think of the recent problems (incompatibilities!) with GPLv2 vs GPLv3. So no freedom: if you want to make software that actually can get used by other projects you need to go GPLv3.

        though, i do not like bsd-like licenses. they are and will be the fall of all free software. they are the license allowing to take and to not give back anything.
        If they chose BSD license it's their problem. If they see that many proprietary projects use their libs but don't give back, they are free to relicense their software. Keep in mind: if the software is good also open source projects will use it - and they are known to give back, aren't they?

        Comment


        • #14
          Fun with crusader's GPLv3 ...

          Isn't that funny: First, the GNU and Linux community start to push everything INTO GPLv3 and further and now several projects are pushing towards a BSD-/MIT-style licensing model used by the *BSD UNIX community now for a long time? It sound a bit like a paradoxon - or anachronism. The Kindergarten seems to get mature and now many people realize, that it isn't a good idea to push EVERYTHING they want to earn money with out into the public. It is always the healthy balance which makes the essence of life.

          Comment


          • #15
            Originally posted by 0xBADCODE View Post
            Furthermore, Vadim Girlin has seriously quistioned attempts to use LLVM in opensource Radeon driver. He has made some neat patches which are drastically improve Unigine-based demos. He credited ability to make them to simplicity of existing code generator and expressed serious doubt if he could do same optimization for LLVM which requires much more learning on how things are working in this monster, etc. In fact this dev admitted that dealing with LLVM took a lot of efforts while result was not great. As far as I understood, LLVM isn't really great when it comes to handling VLIWs and it not just sucks at optimizing VLIW code, it sucks so much that in fact it hardly makes things anyhow better at all. It's whole a crapload of work to make it generate just VALID code, not to mention optimizing it. I.e. it looks like it's easier to tweak existing code generator to adequate state than get LLVM here.

            In fact AMD guys seems to perform very suboptimal strategies in futile attempts to save dev's efforts or so.
            - AMD guys chosen Gallium (to save some dev efforts?). So their driver is a real CPU hog. Intel chosen their own custom implementation. And their driver is *much* better when it comes to CPU usage.
            - AMD guys chosen LLVM (to save some dev efforts again?). And got incredibly slow performance while wasting awfully lot of time to get things running, communicate upstream, fix LLVM for their uncommon arch, push changes here, etc. Without *any* user-visible improvements at all!!! In fact, LLVM backend seems to perform very poorly. It's slow and bugged. And so many time wasted on that crap. Intel on other hand created their own driver. And it performs really well. And they don't have wait for LLVM guys to accept stuff upstream, release new version, blah-blah-blah. It's f....ly amazing how AMD devs could waste such a crapload of time without virtually any user-visible results. So I think Vadim haves a point when he questions why the hell all this LLVM idiocy goes on.

            Maybe AMD guys should really learn some lessons from their competitor? Competitor seems to perform project management much better at this point.
            I think you'r emissing a critical piece of the logic of your own argument. If AMD DIDN'T try out LVM, they would have never know, and now the whole world knows a little bit more that, at least an older version, LLVM isn't the be all and end all of compilation and GCC pretty much is for the time being.

            Comment


            • #16
              Originally posted by a user View Post
              the analogy does not fit. windows is chosen without freedom but due to software dependencies.

              gpl has been chosen totally on own decision for new projects. they could have been going bsd license or anything else.
              http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-2.0.html
              2.b) "You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License."

              This is same as software dependencies.

              Comment


              • #17
                Originally posted by a user View Post
                the analogy does not fit. windows is chosen without freedom but due to software dependencies.

                gpl has been chosen totally on own decision for new projects. they could have been going bsd license or anything else.
                LOOOL so much irony in this post

                I though that GPL was about being "viral", and forcing "freedom" onto people?

                Comment


                • #18
                  Originally posted by brosis View Post
                  Intel drivers are the fastest opensource drivers around, running MILES around AMD and Nouveau.
                  But still perform worse than AMD open source and Nouveau, because their GPUs suck.

                  Comment


                  • #19
                    Originally posted by stiiixy View Post
                    I think you'r emissing a critical piece of the logic of your own argument. If AMD DIDN'T try out LVM, they would have never know, and now the whole world knows a little bit more that, at least an older version, LLVM isn't the be all and end all of compilation and GCC pretty much is for the time being.
                    From what I understood, it has been clear enough from the very beginning that LLVM isn't great when it comes to generating VLIW code. Because it's more or less generic while VLIWs are awfully custom things with very specific requirements on commands stream generation. Something that LLVM never took into account on design and implementation phases. The result is quite predictable: guys wasted a lot of efforts to just get LLVM anyhow working at all and while LLVM isn't great at code optimization on it's own, on VLIW it seems to be completely awful. Old custom code generator STILL performs better. While nobody wasted so many time working on it.

                    As for me it looks like decisions/design phase fault: guys used LLVM due to buzz around, failing to understand it's a troublesome way. It's not even LLVM fault on it's own. It's VLIW and it requires custom approach. LLVM knows nothing about VLIW existence and does not really helps to deal with things like this. Instead it makes things more complicated (as it's generic solution intended to handle dozen of unneeded scenarios), raises bar for those who wants to enter development, requires upstream syncs, etc, etc and ... and at the end of day it FAILS TO PROVIDE REASONABLE PERFORMANCE (and why anybody needs 3D driver with crappy performance, huh?). You see, Vadim has managed to seriously improve FPS on custom code generator because it's simple. If there was LLVM on it's place it would be unlikely as it reqires far more time to get same results.

                    And the worst of all: it could be evaluated qickly. It's fairly predictable. Sure, AMD currently haves awful management issues, but this partucular stubborness is just hard to explain. They literally WASTED YEARS without anyhow usable outcome which can provide user-visible values. What about efforts to results ratio? And why some quite inactive dev could come, quickly improve OLD code and beat all this LLVM idiocy to the hell in terns of performance? Without wasting years of hard work, spending months on waiting upstream, etc. It's just a drastic demonstration of what happens when someone decides to "improve these damn user-visible results" rather than "use LLVM" (or whatever else crap you have).

                    Let's just make some quote:
                    I spent some time last year studying the LLVM infrastructure and R600
                    LLVM backend and trying to improve it, but after all I came to the
                    conclusion that for me it might be easier to implement all that I wanted
                    in the custom backend.
                    Or, for those interested, you can read the whole thread on http://lists.freedesktop.org/archive...ry/034547.html and all reply messages. That's a really amazing history on how LLVM fetishism could make development suboptimal and fruitless. I think it will be yet another shameful page of AMD engineering. When they had chance and missed it due to incredibly silly reasons.

                    P.S. ah, they mumble LLVM needed for opencl. But looks like if they fail to understand that nobody needs SLOW opencl implementation. It's just pointless. Either you can roll out OPTIMIZED implementation or you would waste potential of hardware and lose the market.
                    Last edited by 0xBADCODE; 03-10-2013, 05:46 PM.

                    Comment


                    • #20
                      Originally posted by LightBit View Post
                      But still perform worse than AMD open source and Nouveau, because their GPUs suck.
                      They manage to perform amazing job granted that their hardware is a crap. AMD on other hand haves very good hardware and ... sucking drivers. Proprietary ones are just a bunch of troubles. Opensource ones are slow. And you see, guys managed to literally waste years working on drivers without real improvements on speed. When some external guy entered and improved FPS on Unigine demo to a degree LLVM backend can't even dream so far. Very-very quickly. Absolutely impressive demo on how efforts to results ratio could vary wildly, depending on people goals and management/judgement quality.
                      Last edited by 0xBADCODE; 03-10-2013, 06:03 PM.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X