This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Related Links Top of the: day, week, month.
He has not acquired a fortune; the fortune has acquired him. -- Bion
He has not acquired a fortune; the fortune has acquired him. -- Bion
Missing the OSS boat (Score:2)
It was more along the lines of "why does Compaq think this will sell hardware?" This is obviously a marketing move in order to get themselves inbed with the OSS crowd. It makes no sense to target the "I'll spend $500 on a compiler" crowd on linux. If we were into spending money on our software, we'd be running True64 anyhow because although I don't have any numbers to back this up I'm sure it runs oodles faster than Linux on an Alpha.
The entire point of my comment was to point out that Intel is one of the few hardware vendors that has their heads on straight on how to make money from us (nVidia being another). The whole goal should be to sell chips (and motherboards, and complete systems, etc.) and not compilers. I'm no closer to buying a Alpha then an hour ago before I saw this story. On the other hand I've been foaming at the mouth for a Mercede since Intel is throwing support towards projects that are things I care about.
This is not a story about the merits of their new compiler. It's a story about a half assed attempt by Compaq to rally support behind their chip.
Re:Changes should be incorporated into GCC! (Score:1)
First of all... (Score:2)
Yes this is pretty much critisism, and much of it is just plain and sheer paranoia, but still. Let us make Compaq understand that software for Linux is good. And it is even better if we get it in GPL. If this is a step in the direction of getting this compiler's optimization code into GCC and thus making it GPL, I WILL eat my words in public if so desired. But for now, some public synicism should be shown in order to bring it correct.
I do expect to get a lot of comments on this and I will check back and read it all. Just please be at least a bit constructive when arguing with me. I like to learn of new views. GNU is all about sharing information. I shared my views with you, please share yours with me.
Re:GEM vs. EGCS (Score:2)
In other words, code scheduling. :)
prefetch and invalidation support
Does EGCS do prefetching? How's it done on the Alpha? On the MIPS it's simply a load to $0, I believe.
code for recovery from speculative execution failure
I'm not sure what you're getting at here. The 21264 is an O-O-O machine. For Merced this sort of thing is going to be critical. And I suppose if you want to use some profile information and optimize for that, this could come into play.
I don't believe EGCS makes use of any profiling. That seems to be a big missing piece.
Superscalar architecture have vastly changed the way that optimization works, and VLIW Merced promises to change it even more.
This is true, but it is amazing how much of a difference the simple "classical" optimizations can make. Things like Common Subexpression Elimination, Loop Invariant Code Motion (both grouped under Partial Redundancy Elimination) and Induction Variable optimizations are important. EGCS only recently got a global CSE optimizer!
--
Re:GEM vs. EGCS (Score:1)
--
Re:Missing the Intel Compiler? (Score:1)
The Intel® C/C++ Compiler, available as part of the VTune[tm] Performance Enhancement Environment CD, is designed for 32-bit Microsoft* Windows* applications. The compiler plugs into the Microsoft Visual Studio* and accepts Microsoft compiler options
This has little to do with Linux compiler suppoer.
Your right I full admit Intel's support is vaporware right now. Who knows what will actually turn out.
Re:Compaq still acting proprietary? (Score:1)
They look like standard 3.5 SCSI drives to me. The hot swap carriage is Compaq-only.
Thanks to Microsoft (Score:1)
I wish the same thing could happen to the Intel platform
Re:Better SPEC marks at last? (Score:2)
~$ cc -v
Reading specs from
gcc version egcs-2.91.60 Debian 2.1 (egcs-1.1.1 release)
TEST : Iterations/sec. : Old Index : New Index
: : Pentium 90* : AMD K6/233*
--------------------:------------------:-------
NUMERIC SORT : 271.48 : 6.96 : 2.29
STRING SORT : 24.804 : 11.08 : 1.72
BITFIELD : 6.4238e+07 : 11.02 : 2.30
FP EMULATION : 12.91 : 6.19 : 1.43
FOURIER : 2134.8 : 2.43 : 1.36
ASSIGNMENT : 2.4236 : 9.22 : 2.39
IDEA : 587.56 : 8.99 : 2.67
HUFFMAN : 241.78 : 6.70 : 2.14
NEURAL NET : 3.3857 : 5.44 : 2.29
LU DECOMPOSITION : 112.92 : 5.85 : 4.22
==========================ORIGINAL BYTEMARK RESULTS==========================
INTEGER INDEX : 8.390
FLOATING-POINT INDEX: 4.259
Baseline (MSDOS*) : Pentium* 90, 256 KB L2-cache, Watcom* compiler 10.0
==============================LINUX DATA BELOW===============================
C compiler : gcc version egcs-2.91.60 Debian 2.1 (egcs-1.1.1 release)
libc : unknown version
MEMORY INDEX : 2.114
INTEGER INDEX : 2.079
FLOATING-POINT INDEX: 2.362
Baseline (LINUX) : AMD K6/233*, 512 KB L2-cache, gcc 2.7.2.3, libc-5.4.38
ccc:
TEST : Iterations/sec. : Old Index : New Index
: : Pentium 90* : AMD K6/233*
--------------------:------------------:-------
NUMERIC SORT : 285.47 : 7.32 : 2.40
STRING SORT : 26.566 : 11.87 : 1.84
BITFIELD : 5.3653e+07 : 9.20 : 1.92
FP EMULATION : 13.576 : 6.51 : 1.50
FOURIER : 12000 : 13.65 : 7.67
ASSIGNMENT : 2.3567 : 8.97 : 2.33
IDEA : 482.21 : 7.38 : 2.19
HUFFMAN : 342.29 : 9.49 : 3.03
NEURAL NET : 7.1348 : 11.46 : 4.82
LU DECOMPOSITION : 172.66 : 8.94 : 6.46
==========================ORIGINAL BYTEMARK RESULTS==========================
INTEGER INDEX : 8.524
FLOATING-POINT INDEX: 11.184
Baseline (MSDOS*) : Pentium* 90, 256 KB L2-cache, Watcom* compiler 10.0
==============================LINUX DATA BELOW===============================
C compiler : ccc (unknown version)
libc : unknown version
MEMORY INDEX : 2.018
INTEGER INDEX : 2.213
FLOATING-POINT INDEX: 6.203
Baseline (LINUX) : AMD K6/233*, 512 KB L2-cache, gcc 2.7.2.3, libc-5.4.38
There are +/- in all integers and strings but there is no definite winner there. There is a huge difference in floating point benches, but what do you expect. Compaq links versus cpml egcs links versus libm which is far from where it should be.
Having a second thought let us see what compaq actually does. Hmmm, it looks like all math functions are redefined for Linux to use their "fast" low precision easily crashing equivalents. Lame...
So now let us see what happens if we go like compaq and use gcc and the compaq math library and the same lame technique:
TEST : Iterations/sec. : Old Index : New Index
: : Pentium 90* : AMD K6/233*
--------------------:------------------:-------
NUMERIC SORT : 277.1 : 7.11 : 2.33
STRING SORT : 25.041 : 11.19 : 1.73
BITFIELD : 6.4264e+07 : 11.02 : 2.30
FP EMULATION : 12.935 : 6.21 : 1.43
FOURIER : 13231 : 15.05 : 8.45
ASSIGNMENT : 2.4256 : 9.23 : 2.39
IDEA : 587.65 : 8.99 : 2.67
HUFFMAN : 243.2 : 6.74 : 2.15
NEURAL NET : 4.3012 : 6.91 : 2.91
LU DECOMPOSITION : 114.41 : 5.93 : 4.28
==========================ORIGINAL BYTEMARK RESULTS==========================
INTEGER INDEX : 8.437
FLOATING-POINT INDEX: 8.510
Baseline (MSDOS*) : Pentium* 90, 256 KB L2-cache, Watcom* compiler 10.0
==============================LINUX DATA BELOW===============================
C compiler : gcc version egcs-2.91.60 Debian 2.1 (egcs-1.1.1 release)
libc : unknown version
MEMORY INDEX : 2.121
INTEGER INDEX : 2.094
FLOATING-POINT INDEX: 4.720
Suddenly whe are better then compaq on fourie... And our math is definitely looking better... Hi, hi, hi, hi...
Overall Compaq math library better than libm, some other lib functions as well, but the secret there is most likely called ASM not Compaq-CC.
Anyway, overall this release is good. At least for PR reasons.
Re:ack, never mind, it's C :) (Score:1)
Re:Missing the OSS boat (Score:1)
My point was that I think your assumption that "This is obviously a marketing move in order to get themselves inbed with the OSS crowd. It makes no sense to target the "I'll spend $500 on a compiler" crowd on linux" is wrong. I don't imagine the OSS crowd is even remotely interested in a commercial fortran compiler, or any commercial compiler for that matter, and that I think this move is ultimately intended to sell more Alpha boxes (as well as the compiler suite) to the people who now use Intel based PC's with linux and a commercial compiler suite for numbercrunching, and not to make 'the OSS crowd' love Compaq.
Compaq RAID Linux support (Score:3)
Re:!Free (Score:2)
Re:First of all... (Score:1)
The new EGCS from Cygnus is 20% faster than VC (Score:1)
Re:!Free (Score:2)
jwb responds: I don't hope for anything of that sort. I believe that such an action would constitute reverse engineering of the Compaq compiler, and would therefore be against the explicit language of the license agreement.
Then I would say, get a third party to download the compiler, agree to the license agreement, compile the test cases, and then send the object files over to the GCC/EGCS folks. Do you really think that just because Compaq happened to implement a certain optimization that nobody else should be permitted to? That's just not right. And don't you think that other commercial compiler authors are looking at their competition's optimizations?
There's nothing immoral about reverse engineering.
Re:What advantages? (Score:3)
Re:Missing the OSS boat (Score:2)
You don't get it. Not everyone uses an open source OS out of general principle. A lot of linux PC's are used as number crunchers in universities (with commercial compilers), because a free OS means you buy one cheap copy, that can be installed on all machines you have without restrictions, instead of buying a seperate expensive license for each machine with a lot of restrictions. This can save a fortune, and make a lot of things possible with a limited budget. By porting their commercial compiler suite to Alpha linux, Compaq obviously makes their low end Alpha boxes a more interesting option for this segment of the market.
Re:!Free (Score:3)
I never said that the EGCS/GCC folks should not be able to include optimizations that are also included in the Compaq compiler. However they should develop these optimizations from their own effort or by Compaq's willing generosity, not by reverse engineering Compaq's compiler despite the license agreement.
Last, I never said there was anything immoral about reverse engineering. I do believe that violating the license agreement is immoral. Consider the license agreement to be a promise. Compaq is offering us a compiler. They are saying "Here is this compiler. You may have it if you agree to not reverse engineer it." And when you download the compiler, you are saying "Yes Compaq, I promise to not reverse engineer the compiler." Then if you decide to reverse engineer the compiler anyway, you have broken your promise, which I do think is highly immoral.
-jwb
Re:Missing the Intel Compiler? (Score:1)
You can also look over Intel's site, and see how many products they sell that include Windows drivers, but not Linux drivers, and Intel doesn't (yet) have a site like Compaq's Linux Site [digital.com] or SGI's Linux Site [sgi.com].
I am simply pointing out that Compaq is acknoledging Linux, and the comparison between Compaq and Intel doesn't automatically make Intel look like it's supporting Linux and Compaq doesn't really care.
GCC/EGCS is acceptable on x86 hardware, it's doing "ok." But, Alpha/Linux is still not as powerful of a platform as Alpha/Tru64. I do hope GCC/EGCS narrows the margin at some point in the future. But bashing Compaq isn't going to help. Compaq may be in a position to help GCC by simply donating some hardware to developers. But if they get an "unfriendly" responce from the Linux community, it would be unlikely that they would want to help.
Re:DEC Compilers -- not THAT good ... (Score:1)
Sorry can't agree. The digital VAX C compiler is pretty bad. It has some bugs that are so blatant it should have never been released. (for exmaple it has an ugly habit of not ctacthing missing braces, and then generating bogus code. Ick.) I generally hesitate to use the word "garbage" in describing someone elses software, but that's what first comes to mind here. (Course I'm using an OLD version on OpenVMS 6.2, so that could be my problem I guess
Their ADA compiler rocks though, (very nice. a lot nicer than the ada we use for our cross compiler) so I guess I can't rip em to bad.
enough rambling. back to the salt mines.
/dev
Better SPEC marks at last? (Score:3)
Re:What advantages? (Score:1)
compaq and linux? (Score:1)
Some observations (Score:1)
- The compiler, as distributed, is Beta software, and the license reflects this. There is no mention as to whether the final product will be commercial, free to use, or open source. (I personally doubt the latter, though.)
- Although I work for Compaq (and formerly for Digital), I do not work for the GEM group and cannot speak with any official say on this, but it is my recollection that parts of the compiler are NOT written in C or assembler, so having the source code may not be a big help, actually.
- The reason that GEM gets such good numbers is that the people working on it are Alpha chip experts. They know what optimizations work exceptionally well on the architecture.
- In response to some comments made above, I would like to point out that Compaq (and Digital before that) has supported Linux for a long time, on Intel and Alpha chips. Compaq is not just now jumping on a bandwagon. Remember that Jon ("maddog") Hall, Executive Director of Linux International, was employed by Digital/Compaq up until recently, when LI was able to hire him directly. Compaq's commitment continues, as is evidenced by the release of the C compiler.
- Releasing GEM for Alpha Linux is a smart move in my (admittedly biased) opinion; it allows more applications that are built on Tru64 Unix to run on Alpha Linux. Up until now, only statically linked binaries could run, which precluded threaded applications, etc. One can only hope that some of the other applications now only available on Tru64 Unix will eventually be supported on Linux. And whether they are free or not, having applications available is a win for the whole community.
Finally, please note that I am a Compaq employee, but in no way am I speaking for them in this comment.--
Finally... (Score:1)
Bonz..
Re:DEC Compilers -- not THAT good ... (Score:1)
-- ioctl
Source? (Score:1)
Show me the source code!
/me kicks himself for that one
-Ecc
Re:Missing the OSS boat (Score:1)
His point was that in a setting where you have say 20 computers working on big projects, a person or organization could spend $500 on on one copy of the compiler, and distribute the generated executables accross all of the machines, as oppsed to buying 20 copies of the OS.
another issue is that if speed is critical for you applications, but you are still on a low budget, a $500 dollar compiler may seem like a very good deal as far as price/performance, but a several tousand dollar OS probably will not, so it is not neccessarily true that someone who is willing to spend the money for extra speed will go buy their OS rather than just the compiler
Re:compaq and linux? (Score:1)
I was under the impression that Compaq owned an entire Unix version. Is this not the case? For some reason I though Compaq made Alphas. If not where do Alpha's come from?
license? (Score:1)
!Free (Score:3)
Personally I will not be using or even evaluating this compiler on my Multia (and that thing need all the optimization it can get).
-jwb
What advantages? (Score:1)
Compac vs. Intel (Score:3)
If all they did was create a compiler with Alpha specific optimizations then why not just throw those into gcc?
Intel seems to still know what (OSS) nerds want. Their development on the Mercede compiler with Cygnus is still way ahead in the OSS game.
Re:but you don't need the compiler for that (Score:1)
http:/ /ftp.digital.com/pub/Digital/info/semiconductor/li terature/cmpwrgd.pdf [digital.com]
The pa rent web page [digital.com] also has a bunch of data sheets, manuals and handbooks.
Enjoy (and don't ask me about the space in the link above, I don't know how that happened).
Major Licence Problem!!! (Score:2)
What this means is that if you compile an app with the Compaq compiler, your app is instantly covered by the GPL!!! You can compile non GPLed code with a GNU compiler and use glibc, but you can't compile non-GPLed code with glibc and a non-GNU compiler (such as Compaq's one).
This is why GPL'd libraried are bad, bad, bad (despite RMSs opinions to the contrary).
Re:!Free (Score:1)
There's a difference between what they print and what's legally binding. It's probably time for a lawyer to weigh in here, but from what little I know I strongly suspect that sentence can't be legally binding. If it's not legally binding, it may as well not be there. So I wouldn't be breaking any promises by offering object code to folks who might use it in ways that don't exactly please almighty Compaq.
Your high moral standards are admirable. But if that license wouldn't stand a strong legal breeze, I don't think your eternal soul is in any danger
Re:The new EGCS from Cygnus is 20% faster than VC (Score:2)
Compaq's x86 compiler beats Intel's x86 compiler, or Compaq's Alpha compiler beats Intel's Alpha compiler?
(If the answer is "Compaq's Alpha compiler beats Intel's x86 compiler", that should read as "an Alpha system with an XXX MHz 21X64 and a YYY memory subsystem, running code compiled with Compaq's compiler, beat an x86 system with an XXX Mhz Pentium/Pentium Pro/Pentium II/Xeon Warrior Princess and a YYY memory subsystem, running code compiled with Intel's compiler" - crediting that win solely to the compiler requires some evidence to justify it.)
It's not about Linux.. it is all business (Score:2)
When Compaq bought Digital some time back it did so with several purposes. Ignoring all the patents, research teams and support infrastructure and concentrating in manufacturing there are a few things worth noting.
By having it's own architecture Compaq can have more control on what it can do. Also the Alpha's have been known to have a good architecture. In particular Compaq had little in terms of the Unix market which traditionally has always carried greater margins than PCs.
Digital also had it's own Unix which compaq can borrow code from.
By offering more support to Linux Compaq is simply trying to position itself as a premiere hardware vendor for the platform. It could also be said that perhaps they have a good understanding of the invaluable asset which is mindshare.
Re:compaq and linux? (Score:1)
Re:Major Licence Problem!!! (Score:1)
What you've said may be true (I'm definitely no expert on the GPL, and haven't got time to research the validity of your claim right now), but it's definitely not what the language you posted states.
Won't share source unless to their advantage (Score:2)
My feeling is that they are probably testing the waters and see how to best use this technology to their advantage. Unless someone shows them how they will sell more computers by making this open source I think it is unlikely they will change the licensing.
It is also very possible that Linux companies (i.e. Red Hat, Caldera..) will eventually approach Compaq and try to license the technology.
Re:Compac vs. Intel (Score:1)
A better free compiler would help Compaq sell more Alphas (since benchmarks done by 3rd parties would show Alphas as being even faster compared to Intel processors). Intel seems to understand this. Compaq better learn it soon before the Alpha dies.
99 little bugs in the code, 99 bugs in the code,
fix one bug, compile it again...
Re:compaq and linux? (Score:3)
True enough. Don't forget that Compaq really has 3 markets. The x86 desktop market, the x86 server market, and the Alpha Server/Workstation Market.
In the case of Alpha, which this story reports on, Compaq owns Tru64 Unix, which runs on Alpha. It is their commercial Unix aimed at the high-end. At the low end they are starting to seriously support Linux. Primarily in this case by releasing their compiler for Alpha Linux.
Anyways, Compaq has started doing some serious support of Linux, other noteworthy stories include localizing Linux for Asian markets. Also, they've started slowing killing off NT on Alpha.
=Brent--
Re:compaq and linux? (Score:1)
(Yeah it's off topic, yeah win98 refunds are old news, but only now am I dealing with compaq and am able to fight for my refund ("I'm sorry the OEM EULA doesn't apply to pre-installed windows"))
Re:college students use Unix (Score:1)
Re:Changes should be incorporated into GCC! (Score:1)
Re:What advantages? (Score:1)
RPM (Score:2)
Why is that? I must agree that using rpm and deb is great for managing packages which are a PART of a distribution. But I see no point at all in making third party software rpm.. I prefer getting third party softare in distribution independent format(targz or whatever) and installing it in
Re:Source? (Score:2)
I don't mind honest non-Open-Source nearly as much as I mind says-it's-open-source-but-isn't-really.
Excellent point to remember! By releasing a Linux compiler for the Alpha platform they are "pushing" Linux. That's what's important. Linux is promoted by software, not Open Source.
Open source is important. But not to get people using Linux as a viable platform, at least not always. Open source has it's place. But Compaq has chosen to make a proprietory compiler. This is good for Compaq and good for Linux. Open Source will find it's place other other software.
There are 2 things I like. One is Open Source. The other is software for "alternative" platforms. They both benefit us, and both should be accepted
-Brent--
Re:Major Licence Problem!!! (Score:1)
I don't think so.
Re:What advantages? (Score:1)
the malloc().. On some systems overrunning an
allocated chunk just works, on other crashes with
rather cryptic messages, and in some very
different part of the code.. Using a good debugging version of malloc helps.
I soleved all (most) of my trouble switching to C++ STL for development.. Will not get back to "C"...
Quick Follow-Up (Score:1)
"This General Public License does not permit incorporating your program into proprietary programs."
Pretty clear, so I think it's safe to assume that Compaq will *not* be using GNU's library for its compiler.
Missing the Intel Compiler? (Score:1)
Take a look at Intel's Compiler. [intel.com]. If "Intel is throwing support towards projects that are things I care about" where does this fit in?
Also, take a look at some SPEC results for Intel Hardware [spec.org] and notice that most of the results (even Intel's newest entry [spec.org] are with Intel's compiler. If your really interested, look around on the SPEC [spec.org] site. Even AMD reports results using Intel's compiler [spec.org].
Maybe you should look at Apple, at least they use GCC as thier compiler.
Knock of the Double Standard (Score:1)
Wait...
I think Compaq is a step ahead of Intel in the Linux compiler area.... I don't understand why you would want to bash them for it, and say Intel is so great because they support GCC vaporware for Merced vaporware on paper.
Re:First of all... (Score:3)
Then don't. There, does that make you feel better?
I guess the important thing is to realize that all software doesn't need to always benefit everyone in the whole world. Compaq port this to benefit a certain clientele. That group of people, will, no doubt be benefited, and feel genuinely benefited. Everyone else will not be benefited, by something that wasn't intended to benefit them.
Use gcc. And Smile! Because gcc benefits you. But it doesn't benefit everyone.
-Brent--
Not so fast =) (Score:1)
"As a special exception, if you link this library with files compiled with a GNU compiler to produce an executable, this does not cause the resulting executable to be covered by the GNU General Public License. This exception does not however invalidate any other reasons why the executable file might be covered by the GNU General Public License."
What this is saying is that if you link against the library when you've compiled a program using a GNU compiler, then your program is not forced into the GPL. This is to make sure that proprietary software can be produced using a GNU compiler without having to rewrite the whole libc. (Though I can see RMS rubbing his hands thoughtfully already. =) It specifically states that this does not invalidate any other conditions that would make your program automatically GPL, INCLUDING usage of this library with a program compiled using a NON-GNU compiler. Therefore, you can not use this library with a proprietary compiler unless the produced code is GPL'd.
If this turns out to be true, then Compaq will be forced to write their own libc; not only is that a Big Deal, it means that if you write a program with their compiler, you'd have to distribute their libc with it each time or link statically, and GNU's libc is included in every Linux distribution automatically. This makes it less and less advantageous to release such a compiler for Linux.
Re:Major Licence Problem!!! (Score:1)
I believe libio was written under the GPL (with the exception you mentioned) specifically so that authors of proprietary compilers (such as Compaq) would not be able to use their work without giving something back to the free software community. Thus, Compaq will have to rewrite libio for themselves. If Per is wasting his time on ./ instead of writing us some more free code, perhaps he would like to comment?
I personally would have worded the exception "... with a GPL'ed compiler" in order to encourage Compaq to consider releasing their compiler under the GPL; the wording "GNU compiler" is ambiguous and implies (to me) only GCC/EGCS. For that matter, it seems as if Compaq could call their compiler a "GNU compiler" (without GPL'ing it) since the definition of this is fairly ambiguous.
Anyway, this is not the forum for another GPL flame war. But I'm sure the author's intent in this case was not to try to trick people into GPL'ing their software, but rather to prevent proprietary compiler companies from "stealing" his work.
JMC
Re:RPM (Score:1)
Re:!Free (Score:1)
Sigh. Unfortunately this method would also be against the license agreement. Remember, the license specifically forbids using the beta compiler for anything besides evaluation and testing.
How is downloading it, compiling some stuff, seeing that it is faster than what GCC can do, and looking at the generated assembly against the license. This is testing (compiling you code, seeing how fast it runs) and evaluating (having a look at the generated assembly), exactly what the license allows.
Saying you can't look at the assembly output of a compiler you're beta-testing is like saying, I dunno, like saying you can't look at a picture produced by a raytracer you're beta-testing!
Re:Major Licence Problem!!! (Score:1)
I'm sure EGCS is considered derivative work of GCC, so the exception would have been applied to egcs too.
The exception is granted to a generic software called 'Gnu compiler'. It certainly includes all derivative works. (If not, there would have been a specific version number in each C library as technically, each new version of the gnu c compiler is a derivative work)
There's nevertheless a license problem in the Libc as I don't see what makes the FSF different from me regarding the GPL, and they explicitely forbid all modifications/additions of their license.
Re: well duh (Score:1)
Then when it's "let's make MS look dumber", say that compaq dumped MS.
The truth is compaq dumped MS.
And as for this...
Microsoft had an Alpha port in mind when they were designing Win2K
Well BIG DUH. Up until the latest public build 2114, there were both Alpha and Intel builds released and cycled.
It's not very hard - just compile the same source. 99% of windows is application extensions (COM, Services etc).
That's what the hardware abstraction layer was for.
Re:!Free (Score:2)
No, that's not how it was... (Score:1)
I like the compiler, it needed a little configuring, but I expected that. It works good on the things I've tried it on so far, giving a 16% speedup on a tight loop (which I would have expected GCC to be able to give).
So what if it's not GPL, they are being nice and everyone of the
Another interpretation... (Score:1)
I agree (Score:1)
Re:college students use Unix (Score:1)
So many assumptions, so little time... (Score:2)
...That Compaq/Digital has the ability to release it as source. Maybe there is some third party code as part of the optimizer that they do not have the ability to distribute.
... That the team working on this has the bandwidth to clean this up right away. They are understaffed and overworked as it is...
Do I need to continue? Better start chowing down...
Disclaimer: I'm a Compaq employee who (indirectly) works with GEM. But I do not speak for anyone but myself.
Re:Not so fast =) (Score:1)
Hell, that might even make market sense, especially if there are any old license royalties with the OSF/Tru64 line.
Re:Not so fast =) (Score:1)
DEC Compilers (Score:4)
the compiler team once. They are very smart people, and their compilers are very efficient and standards compliant to a point.
We have to think about why Compaq bought digital. One reason has to be for Digital's services section, which is one of the best in the world.
Another one has to be for the sheer bulk of tech genius that Digital has. Digital's problem has never been lack of innovation, it was an inability to market these innovations. ( Anyone heard any news of the Itsy? ).
Beleive me, I worked on a product 3 years ago, that still hasn't hit the shelves.
Anyway, Compaq now has a lot of specialist expertise, and it's obviously putting it to good use. We have to respect this. They can't simply buy a multi-billion tech company and start to give away the technologies for free.
Remember that the primary reason that slashdotters cclaim that companies should opensource their technologies is to help them innovate and stabalise. If this is unnecessary, then we don't really have another argument.
I think it's a step in the right direction. We have the people who built the alpha releasing compilers for Linux/Alpha. Sorted.
This is going to allow alot of alpha developers to move from Digital Unix to Linux
Re:Source? (Score:1)
As long as there's a way to get around patents and intellectual property problems, and there's popularity behind it, a program will usually, eventually, have an open source version.
Please, correct me if i'm just being hopeful and wrong (which is usually the case)
Re:Source? (Score:1)
Re:!Free (Score:1)
So it may not be illegal to pass the object code on. That doesn't really change the morality of the situation. I believe Kant's categorical imperative (an action is moral only it can be an universal law) applies. Suppose you or someone else does that and these optimizations start popping up in egcs/gcc. Compaq is probably going to get pissed and may not be willing to help gcc/linux efforts in the future. Other companies may see this example and decide not to support the community in the future. Not a good thing.
Personally I don't see how this is different from Microsoft's actions. In both cases someone is using shady/unethical, if legal, means to steal ideas from a company. I would prefer giving up that extra 5% speed boost in order to keep the moral high ground. Wouldn't you?
Re:!Free (Score:2)
That's why reverse-engineering is done with a clear-room implementation. However, even that would be illegal with the license agreement. Documenting the specifics of the optimizations and passing them on to a coder is not part of "testing" a compiler.
Re:Major Licence Problem!!! (Score:1)
The good news is that the problem could be solved by replacing libio, which is less than 2% of the half million lines of code in glibc, with a clone covered by LGPL + the other exceptions in the libio copying conditions.
Re:Changes should be incorporated into GCC! (Score:1)
Re:compaq and linux? (Score:1)
But I think this attempt by Compaq is sincere. Why do I come to this conclusion? Simple which hardware vendor has been doing demos with Microsoft. It used to be Compaq. Not anymore. It is DELL.
Re:Compac vs. Intel (Score:1)
What good is it to compile a couple of seconds faster when the binary is slower?
--
Re:compaq and linux? (Score:1)
They had a booth at LinuxWorld in San Jose this year, and I had the occasion to watch the presentation. Apparently, they've decided to actually put some marketing behind Alpha to help promote its use. Samsung is the most prolific Alpha chip manufacturer right now afaik.
Now if they would just fix the API website to no longer have .asp's and get rid of the mention of Microsoft being a partner...
Re:Compac vs. Intel (Score:1)
http://www.kdevelop.org/
Code Crusader here:
http://www.cco.caltech.edu/~jafl/jcc/
Any one have any other links for the IDE/GUI builders for GCC ?
GEM vs. EGCS (Score:3)
Just why is EGCS so much worse than GEM? Is it because of backend very machine-specific optimizations (code scheduling, for example), or is it simply because EGCS does not support all the (mostly) machine-independent optimizations that GEM does?
The reason I ask is that getting EGCS up to speed with the same optimizations as GEM not only helps it on Alpha, it helps it on other platforms as well.
To phrase the question another way: What is the biggest missing piece in EGCS? Analysis? Optimization? Better machine models?
--
Re:!Free (Score:3)
2. GRANT:
Compaq Computer Corporation ("Compaq") grants you the right to use the Software solely for testing and evaluation. The Software shall not be used for any other purpose and you agree to destroy or erase all copies of the Software upon Compaq's release of the code in final form.
You may copy the Software into the local memory or storage device of any number of computers for your testing and evaluation. The number of computers must be identified in the upcoming screen. You may make archival or back-up copies of the Software.
3. COPYRIGHT
The Software is protected by copyright laws and international treaties. Your use of the Software and associated documentation is subject to the applicable copyright laws and the express rights and restrictions of these License Agreement.
4. RESTRICTIONS
You may not rent, lease, or otherwise transfer the Software. You may not make the Software available over the internet or similar networking technology. You may not remove any copyright, trademark, or other proprietary notices from the Software or the media. You may not reverse engineer, decompile, or disassemble the Software, except to the extent Compaq cannot prohibit such acts by law.
-jwb
Re:What advantages? (Score:2)
Re:GEM vs. EGCS (Score:2)
Re:Major Licence Problem!!! (Score:2)
However, Compaq has most likely written their own libraries, so the point is moot.
Re:Makes that BSD licence look good (Score:3)
It'll be a long rocky road for Linux if all of the Linux community had this "Open Source or F--- Off" attitude.
I'm all for the development of open source software, but it's going to be a while before Postges or MySql is up to the speed of Oracle, before KWord is up to Microsoft Word, before Gnumeric is up to Microsoft Excel, before GCC is up to commercial compilers, before KDeveloper is up to Code Fusion, before GnoMoney is up to Quicken, before....
There is a slow shift to open source software, that is clear. But it's not happening overnight, and there will be a place for commercial applications for quite a time to come. If all the "Microsoft Windows" software ran on Linux today, wouldn't you agree that Linux would probably have a more rapidly expanding user base? And, it the end, this would help the development of open source software?
If you notice, GCC is managed now by Cygnus [cygnus.com], and without thier commercial products, they wouldn't have two nickels to rub together, much less host the GCC/EGCS web site, cvs site, ftp site, or the staff to help development of the compiler.
Slashdot itself is running on a MySQL database, which, if you were not aware, is NOT open source, it's commercial (to an extent). So, your post has at least been rendered up by a commercial product.
Really, I think the Linux community at large would be best served to get off of it's GPL evanglist soap box. Personally, I find no harsh things to say about the BSD licence, it's a valid licence, and I would rather see people use the BSD licence that "invent" a licence of thier own like Sun, AOL/Netscape, and Apple have done when they say they are supplying an "open source" product.
For Fortran, cross platform could be relevant (Score:2)
If you're using Fortran, you are, most likely, bashing numbers (My dissertation wasn't number crunching, but bashing them into submission
This is also in a market where your are *planning* on spending $1k to $2k for your compiler & libraries.
The question isn't, "which is fastest for my platform," but "which is fastest for my budget."
The real question *is* "how does the fastest x86 compiler on the best x86 I can get my paws on compare the the fastest alpha compiler on the fastest alpha I can afford."
Two and a half years ago, our answer to that was Absoft (Nag's compiler generates c, then uses the host c compiler). The difference at the time wasn't the hardware, but that we would have had to buy digital unix to run digital's fortran. Had this compiler been available then, we almost certainly would have gone alpha. (There would also have been political complications if we had been running DU outside of ISU's Vincent system, but my boss had tenure, so . .
Anyway, folks don't generally buy the fortran compiler to run on hardware they already have; fortran is a major factor in determining which hardware. No, the answer may not be the same next week
doc hawk
epilogue: It turned out that we *really* could have used the 64 bits rather than 32--absoft uses pieces from cray, which bit addresses, meaning that 32 bit addressing limited arrays of derived types to
but you don't need the compiler for that (Score:2)
Isn't ths already available in the documentation for the processor? I'd be stunned if digital hasn't disclosed the information to figure out how to keep the processor busy. The question isn't what order is best, but *how* to turn your source into a useful order, which would seem to be the compiler alone.
Real simple :) (Score:2)
Not just for alphas (Score:2)
A c compiler would be another story, it's (for all intents and purposes) part of unix that is necessary for a system. Fortran is necessary for certain uses of systems.
Giving away the code now would be giving away *decades* of expertise. It might ultimately be worth their doing this. Otoh, it precludes a lot of their long term options.
Re:GEM vs. EGCS (Score:3)
To answer this question you'd have to understand how CPU architectures have changed in the last ten years. Optimization today requires that the compiler reorder instructions using internal knowledge of how the processor works, provide branch prediction information, instruction packing into compatible groups, prefetch and invalidation support, code for recovery from speculative execution failure, and indication to the CPU of what status register flags will be used in the future so that instruction scheduling can potentially be offloaded to a faster ALU if certain flags can be ignored.
Superscalar architecture have vastly changed the way that optimization works, and VLIW Merced promises to change it even more.
I don't write compilers myself, but I know that there is a lot of research being done in these areas, complete with just as many new patents on those algorithms as you would probably anticipate.
Re:Compac vs. Intel (Score:2)
ack, never mind, it's C :) (Score:2)
I would have sworn when I read the title yesterday that we were talking about Fortran. Never mind. I'll wait for the Fortran release to get excited
Re:DEC Compilers (Score:2)
In general I agree with your post. However, it might be in Compaq's best interest to "give away" a compiler that made Linux way hot on Alpha, since that might influence more Linux users to buy Alpha instead of some other brand.
OTOH, it would be a matter of giving away something they had paid for, and it might even make Alpha/Linux users less likely to upgrade to Alpha/Tru64.
In short, it's a business decision. No harm in us asking for it; they've just got to see where their best interests lie.
Never mind, I meant fortran (Score:2)
Ignore this, I meant fortran (Score:2)
Re:!Free (Score:2)
Re:!Free (Score:4)
I don't hope for anything of that sort. I believe that such an action would constitute reverse engineering of the Compaq compiler, and would therefore be against the explicit language of the license agreement.
Compaq wrote it and they are entitled to whatever licensing terms they want. While I believe that Compaq should contribute their optimiations to the community, I don't believe they should be forced to and in the absence of Compaq's willingness I guess the GNU folks are just going to have to rely on their own formidable genius and cunning to come up with a better optimized compiler.
-jwb
Re:Source? (Score:2)
I don't mind honest non-Open-Source nearly as much as I mind says-it's-open-source-but-isn't-really.
Bruce