We're working on the necessary infrastructure to associate the pragmas with the syntactic constructs they apply to. Actually parsing the OpenMP directives was already implemented - twice - but GCC does not support pragmas with a lexical context yet. This is needed for a bunch of C extensions, so we're working on that. This is probably GCC 4.1 material. After that, actually generating concurrent code from OpenMP pragmas is next.
IBM has no interest in putting UNIX under the GPL. They still have Dynix and AIX, remember? Just because they hopped onto the Linux boat doesn't mean they've abandoned their proprierty software base.
so what does it take to get from you a conviction to fight for a middle east that isn't a basket case that breeds terrorism... not even on the grounds of concern for your fellow human being, but even when 9/11 establishes that such a cause is even for your own self-preservation?
So what does it take to convince you that your fighting is the very thing that breeds terrorism in the Middle-East?
In your typical USA way of thinking, you seem to think that you can win peace by fighting a war, apparently. Ain't gonna happen, baby! You win peace by winning the hearts of the people. And you don't do that by, say, keeping a one-sided view of the Israel-Palestine conflict, by draining oil from Arab countries without caring about the people who live there in poverty and uneducated, or by ousting a dictator without good reason to go to war (after first supporting the dictator for more than a decade, after already failing to remove him in 1991 when there was a just cause, and after betraying rebelling parties a couple of years later).
To my mind, the best way to lower the threat level of the Middle East is to stop giving it our money. Let Europe buy their oil and become entangled in their affairs. We don't need it.
Well FYI, the USA suck up far more oil from the middle-east than Europe does. Here in Europe we've moved to fuel-efficient cars, (research in) renewable energy sources, and in general, sources of energy that make us less dependent on the middle east.
The USA should try and learn a lesson from that... Oh wait! You never look outside the USA. The USA uber alles, after all.
I would certainly hope there will not be a GCC 3.5 created by someone else. Can't think of any reason to, really.
From GCC 3.3 onward, almost all development of GCC was centered around the tree-ssa project (the new optimization framework for GCC 4.0) and even though bits were in GCC 3.4 (unit-at-a-time for example), there really isn't any major new functionality in GCC 4.0 that is easily backported to GCC 3.4 that would suddenly make it different enough to call it GCC 3.5
And even new major functionality doesn't mean one has to give a new GCC its own version number. If you look at the SUSE compilers from SUSE 9.0 and later (based on the hammer branch), they claim to be GC 3.3 based, but they're more like GCC 3.4 without the new C++ front end.
RedHat had to do gcc-2.96 because GCC 3.0 was so awfully overdue and they had customer contracts to satisfy. They gave it a new version number because the C++ ABI it implemented had changed from 2.95. The problem was that the ABI was also not the same as the one implemented for GCC 3.0. That basically caused all other linux distribition to be binary incompatible with RedHat. That caused some hard feelings...
This mostly comes from specializing loops and jumps. ICC does aggressive loop versioning (even including runtime CPUID checks) and, especially with profile feedback (not tested in this benchmark, unfortunately) ICC will try aggressively to try cheap alternatives before trying the generic approach. Think about expensive instructions such as divides and indirect jumpes here. GCC doesn't do that.
If you consider AMD to be mere Intel architecture clones, then no it does not support other architecures.
If you consider AMD64 as a new architecture, then yes ICC will support non-Intel architectures. Of course, assuming you agree that EM64T is a cheap (and rather inferior) clone of the AMD64 architecture.
Nobody cares about stack smashing protection anymore these days. Besides, GCC 4.0 has libmudflap and -fmudflap for C and C++. While this isn't exactly the same as stack smashing protection, it is still very effective and much more efficient.
It's not entirely without reason that IBM still hasn't posted ProPolice for inclusion in the FSF GCC mainline. The patch against SUSE's hammer branch has been floating around literally for years, but they know really only very few people truely believe it makes a difference.
And you might want to try IceCream instead of distcc. It's pretty, it's fast, it's hetrogeneously mutliplatform, and it's free software too.
Prescott in general has had more then its fair share of problems. Prescott is a massive CPU with a 31 stage pipeline, compared to the older P4's 20 and the Athlon XP's 12. I'm not sure off the top of my head how many stages the Athlon 64 has.
All this extra complexity is supposed to make it easier to clock up the processor, and was the same trick Intel used to gain clock speed from the PIII to the P4, so the marketing folks said "Do it again."
That's the problem Intel has right now, really. Marketing seems to say, "Make it sound faster", only looking for good warrior CPUs in the Mega Hertz Wars. IBM/Apple and AMD have not been trying to go for faster clock speeds but instead for faster CPUs.
Such long pipelines as the Prescott line may help achieving higher clock speeds, but 31 stages means that you'll see more pipeline stalls, so your CPU is happily running at higher clock rates, doing nothing. Of course, not all instructions actually have to go through all 31 stages, but still, it's impractical to have so many stages in an architecture when you know that every so-many-but-fewer-than-31 instructions you're going to hit a branch. Not to mention the additional complication for the on-die dependency tracking that you need in out-of-order cores like Prescott.
Of course in-order architectures with full predication ISAs would solve some of the problems with longer pipelines, but I guess we can't say that this other Intel architecture, ia64, is such a great success;-)
Slashdot Mirror
We're working on the necessary infrastructure to associate the pragmas with the syntactic constructs they apply to. Actually parsing the OpenMP directives was already implemented - twice - but GCC does not support pragmas with a lexical context yet. This is needed for a bunch of C extensions, so we're working on that. This is probably GCC 4.1 material. After that, actually generating concurrent code from OpenMP pragmas is next.
At least he has the documents. I couldn't find those on Groklaw.
IBM has no interest in putting UNIX under the GPL. They still have Dynix and AIX, remember? Just because they hopped onto the Linux boat doesn't mean they've abandoned their proprierty software base.
People at DERI in Ireland's Galway are also working on the Semantic Web (see http://www.deri.ie/). I thought lots of people are...
So what does it take to convince you that your fighting is the very thing that breeds terrorism in the Middle-East?
In your typical USA way of thinking, you seem to think that you can win peace by fighting a war, apparently. Ain't gonna happen, baby! You win peace by winning the hearts of the people. And you don't do that by, say, keeping a one-sided view of the Israel-Palestine conflict, by draining oil from Arab countries without caring about the people who live there in poverty and uneducated, or by ousting a dictator without good reason to go to war (after first supporting the dictator for more than a decade, after already failing to remove him in 1991 when there was a just cause, and after betraying rebelling parties a couple of years later).
Well FYI, the USA suck up far more oil from the middle-east than Europe does. Here in Europe we've moved to fuel-efficient cars, (research in) renewable energy sources, and in general, sources of energy that make us less dependent on the middle east.
The USA should try and learn a lesson from that... Oh wait! You never look outside the USA. The USA uber alles, after all.
Just one implementation of Java? Get serious. GNU has one, IBM has one or two, NaturalBridge has a Java compiler, etc.
I would certainly hope there will not be a GCC 3.5 created by someone else. Can't think of any reason to, really.
From GCC 3.3 onward, almost all development of GCC was centered around the tree-ssa project (the new optimization framework for GCC 4.0) and even though bits were in GCC 3.4 (unit-at-a-time for example), there really isn't any major new functionality in GCC 4.0 that is easily backported to GCC 3.4 that would suddenly make it different enough to call it GCC 3.5
And even new major functionality doesn't mean one has to give a new GCC its own version number. If you look at the SUSE compilers from SUSE 9.0 and later (based on the hammer branch), they claim to be GC 3.3 based, but they're more like GCC 3.4 without the new C++ front end.
RedHat had to do gcc-2.96 because GCC 3.0 was so awfully overdue and they had customer contracts to satisfy. They gave it a new version number because the C++ ABI it implemented had changed from 2.95. The problem was that the ABI was also not the same as the one implemented for GCC 3.0. That basically caused all other linux distribition to be binary incompatible with RedHat. That caused some hard feelings...
This mostly comes from specializing loops and jumps. ICC does aggressive loop versioning (even including runtime CPUID checks) and, especially with profile feedback (not tested in this benchmark, unfortunately) ICC will try aggressively to try cheap alternatives before trying the generic approach. Think about expensive instructions such as divides and indirect jumpes here. GCC doesn't do that.
Depends on how you look at it.
If you consider AMD to be mere Intel architecture clones, then no it does not support other architecures.
If you consider AMD64 as a new architecture, then yes ICC will support non-Intel architectures. Of course, assuming you agree that EM64T is a cheap (and rather inferior) clone of the AMD64 architecture.
Bull crap.
There will be no GCC 3.5
The next non-bugfix release will be GCC 4.0
Sorry but... ProPolice sucks.
Nobody cares about stack smashing protection anymore these days. Besides, GCC 4.0 has libmudflap and -fmudflap for C and C++. While this isn't exactly the same as stack smashing protection, it is still very effective and much more efficient.
It's not entirely without reason that IBM still hasn't posted ProPolice for inclusion in the FSF GCC mainline. The patch against SUSE's hammer branch has been floating around literally for years, but they know really only very few people truely believe it makes a difference.
And you might want to try IceCream instead of distcc. It's pretty, it's fast, it's hetrogeneously mutliplatform, and it's free software too.
That's the problem Intel has right now, really. Marketing seems to say, "Make it sound faster", only looking for good warrior CPUs in the Mega Hertz Wars. IBM/Apple and AMD have not been trying to go for faster clock speeds but instead for faster CPUs.
Such long pipelines as the Prescott line may help achieving higher clock speeds, but 31 stages means that you'll see more pipeline stalls, so your CPU is happily running at higher clock rates, doing nothing. Of course, not all instructions actually have to go through all 31 stages, but still, it's impractical to have so many stages in an architecture when you know that every so-many-but-fewer-than-31 instructions you're going to hit a branch. Not to mention the additional complication for the on-die dependency tracking that you need in out-of-order cores like Prescott.
Of course in-order architectures with full predication ISAs would solve some of the problems with longer pipelines, but I guess we can't say that this other Intel architecture, ia64, is such a great success ;-)
I can't exploit this on my SUSE kernel. All I get (after many attempts) is:
[+] kernel 2.4.21-192-athlon vulnerable: YES exploitable YES
MMAP #65530 0x50bfa000 - 0x50bfb000 [-] Failed
Perhaps this hasn't gone completely unnoticed...
Wtf. "America's history"?! _WORLD_ history!!!