Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Apple's Compiler Team Starts Upstreaming Changes For macOS 11

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

  • Apple's Compiler Team Starts Upstreaming Changes For macOS 11

    Phoronix: Apple's Compiler Team Starts Upstreaming Changes For macOS 11

    It wasn't even twenty four hours ago that Apple disclosed their plans for transitioning to in-house chips for future laptops and desktops and with that macOS 11. Already we are seeing the first of the LLVM compiler patches being upstreamed in preparing for the wild new Apple future...

    http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...s-For-macOS-11

  • #2
    Would have been more interesting if their in-house chips were RISC-V instead of ARM ...
    Last edited by Raka555; 06-23-2020, 07:40 AM.

    Comment


    • #3
      Or power9/10

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by elatllat View Post
        Or power9/10
        Not exactly feasible when most of Apple's Mac lineup are laptops and compact desktops. Not that Power doesn't have it's uses, but that's like suggesting that Ford should move to gas turbine engines, i.e an interesting idea that totally falls flat on it's face as soon as you start considering feasibility.

        Oh and before anyone starts going on about the Rover and Chrysler gas turbine cars neither came to market due to being horrifically expensive to make, incredibly fuel inefficient and a myriad of smaller issues like the exhaust being hot enough to set things on fire and burn people who went too close to the tail pipe when the engine was running. Gas turbines do have their uses in airplanes, helicopters and electricity generation, but they're not suited for use in cars.

        Comment


        • #5
          Wondering how the patches done by Codeweavers to get Windows 32bit apps working on Catalina is going to look like after the X86_64 instruction set has been yanked from beneath them.
          If I was them I would see macOS BS as a serious threat to my product (not that Catalina was not a threat though). At least they've got until year-end to sort things out (before the first ARM-ed Apple ships).
          Are they going to sort-of-Qemu/JIT it, or leverage off the purported Linux virtualization on BS? Or some other Rosetta 2 nonsense? I'm looking forward to their blog post when they've conquered it.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Raka555 View Post
            Would have been interesting if their in-house chips were RISC-V instead of ARM ...
            ARM or RISC-V doesn’t matter, Apple is looking towards the future where things Like a Neural Engine, and CODEC acceleration matter. The CPU architecture doesn’t matter. Silicon matters and Apple needs uncontrolled access to that silicon.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by elatllat View Post
              Or power9/10
              Haha, imagine Apple ever using an IBM architecture for their processors XD


              ...

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Raka555 View Post
                Would have been interesting if their in-house chips were RISC-V instead of ARM ...
                Apple has, for quite some time, invested heavily in their own custom ARM chips (they are one of the few companies to have an ARM Architecture license, which allows them to do pretty much anything to their resulting SoC, and have built up an excellent core design team(*)). RISC-V's potential advantages is royalty free and ability to change the instruction set and to tune the result for specific use cases, but as an ARM Architecture licensee Apple already has equivalent benefits, and has been actually shipping devices for quite some time before RISC-V was a glimmer in the eyes of the proponents.

                In the end, what RISC-V was successful at, was forcing ARM to respond to the potential RISC-V impacts to their business, such as allow a bit more customization without the need for a full architecture license, and offering more variants of their processors (from lower power/performance to much greater power/performance), and to update the licensing fees.

                (*) The recent Axx processors are acknowledged as being some of the best ARM based SoCs "available".

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by L_A_G View Post
                  Oh and before anyone starts going on about the Rover and Chrysler gas turbine cars neither came to market due to being horrifically expensive to make, incredibly fuel inefficient and a myriad of smaller issues like the exhaust being hot enough to set things on fire and burn people who went too close to the tail pipe when the engine was running. Gas turbines do have their uses in airplanes, helicopters and electricity generation, but they're not suited for use in cars.
                  Minor nitpick, while I agree with your message (Power is not optimized for low-power usage in laptops and it would require A LOT of effort to get it to a point where it is competitive with ARM/Intel/AMD), using technology limitations from the 50-60s (which is more than 50 years ago, for the math-challenged) does not make for a good example for your argument.

                  I mean, I can buy a miniature (big as a large fist) but still true jet engine, people in this century use them to fly model airplanes (and hoverboards), for chrissake.

                  Ah also there is a tank (the M1 Abrahms, USA) that is using a turbine as engine since mid 70s. That's basically a big truck, and it's not massively easier to spot with infrared cameras than other tanks using normal engines.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by mvniekerk86 View Post
                    Wondering how the patches done by Codeweavers
                    I'd hazard a guess, they are all fucked

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X