Cell was interesting. It was a response to the needs of its time. It didn't stick, but it exposed some new thinking in compute hardware design. Not all designs that respond to a problem catch on. But that happens with most innovations.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
GCC 10 Compiler Drops IBM Cell Broadband Engine SPU Support
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by s_j_newbury View PostI don't really understand why GCC would drop support for a relatively modern, powerful (even if flawed) ubiquitous hardware platform that's still used by enthusiasts just because the vendor no longer supports it. Since when was GCC a vendor oriented compiler project? Is it just a lack of maintainers for the code in question?
That Sony prevented 3rd party OS'es on the PS3 was probably also a quite effective tool to drastically reduce any volunteer interest to work on that target.
- Likes 2
Comment
-
PS3 is jailbroken though, nothing stops anybody from not updating their firmware to a "fixed" version or downgrading to a working version (may require a dongle?). Would be great if Sony would open up the platform, but it really isn't likely.
It is interesting hardware for the "homebrew scene".
- Likes 1
Comment
-
Originally posted by jabl View Post
Actively developed, complex pieces of software like GCC require constant work on the CPU targets to keep up with changes. If nobody is willing to maintain any particular CPU target support, that support will eventually be deprecated and subsequently removed. Which is what happened here. The GCC community is under no obligation to maintain support for dead targets indefinitely.
That Sony prevented 3rd party OS'es on the PS3 was probably also a quite effective tool to drastically reduce any volunteer interest to work on that target.
Comment
-
Originally posted by s_j_newbury View PostOf course this is true, but maybe they just needed to draw attention to the fact it needs a maintainer, or maybe that's part of the intention with dropping the support, although deprecating it first might have been sufficient.
Now it was removed from GCC trunk, which will eventually become gcc 10. Though if someone steps up to maintain it, I'm sure the removal can still be reverted.
- Likes 1
Comment
-
Originally posted by s_j_newbury View PostI don't really understand why GCC would drop support for a relatively modern, powerful (even if flawed) ubiquitous hardware platform that's still used by enthusiasts just because the vendor no longer supports it. Since when was GCC a vendor oriented compiler project? Is it just a lack of maintainers for the code in question?
The main reason is probably related to Linux's popularity. Back in the day, it took years before new hardware was supported on Linux, because the folks writing the drivers were mainly hobbyists working in their free time. Now that there's big corporate sponsorship, it's a double edged sword. On the one hand, when a company puts full time devs on Linux kernel drivers, we get drivers that are robust and complete when (or even before) the hardware is released. On the other hand, those companies don't want to pay indefinitely until the end of time for those devs to maintain the drivers. So unless someone else steps up and volunteers, they become "abandonware" drivers and get dropped from the kernel.
Personally, I think the kernel and toolchain folks should keep support for old hardware, unless it starts failing to compile, or some glaring flaw is discovered in it. I don't see how it's harming anything to keep the old hardware support in there. But then again, I'm not a developer.
Last edited by torsionbar28; 04 September 2019, 02:38 PM.
- Likes 1
Comment
-
Originally posted by LoveRPi View PostInsanely high performance architecture that developers were too lazy to design for. IBM did everything right except make the barriers to entry low enough for average devs but cache coherency needs to die.
So, are any indy devs still making any PS3 games or demos? I don't know if the PS3 will ever this sort of vintage, but devs are still working with far more obscure hardware:
Members of Carnegie Mellon University's computer club have somehow managed to not only obtain a working GCE Vectrex, but create an incredible 64K audiovisual demo on the obscure, 30-year old game console.
There's a good Vectrex emulator, in case you can't scrounge a working HW unit.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Alex/AT View PostInsanely "high" performance POWER-based architecture with insane development and optimization costs plus no good optimization compatibility with existing software (SPEs are 'units in themselves' that are just pieces of compute power like GPU units that cannot run generalized software). The end result (death of the platform) was pretty predictable.
If they had to re-implement the architecture today, I would imagine they could address numerous deficiencies and not have the same limitations of that era. You can clearly see many design philosophies of the architecture integrated into chips today. Together with more reconfigurable crossbar switch, rings, heterogenous ISA, and chiplets, it could create processors that would be real monsters in real-world applications.
- Likes 1
Comment
-
Originally posted by edwaleni View PostCell was interesting. It was a response to the needs of its time.
As one might infer from that, more capable GPUs obviated the need for quite such a thing.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Alex/AT View PostInsanely "high" performance POWER-based architecture with insane development and optimization costs plus no good optimization compatibility with existing software (SPEs are 'units in themselves' that are just pieces of compute power like GPU units that cannot run generalized software). The end result (death of the platform) was pretty predictable.
Originally posted by Alex/AT View PostAlso, the general mainstream software compiler optimization for PUs without branch prediction and active microcode execution thread management is a pain, and all such platforms are pretty much doomed.
- Likes 1
Comment
Comment