balahindustani at gmail.com
Mon May 4 07:19:23 PDT 2009
On Sun, May 3, 2009 at 5:12 AM, Greg Lindahl <lindahl at pbm.com> wrote:
> > [Intel and Shanghai]
> > > Is this deliberate?
> > In the sense that they have no desire to support
> > competitors hardware, yes. Not really surprising,
> > if AMD made compilers I doubt they'd try and do
> > Intel specific optimisations either..
> Actually, that's what a part of the AMD/Intel anti-trust lawsuit is
> about. Back in the day of plug-compatible mainframes, IBM would have
> been in deep anti-trust doodoo for intentionally reducing performance
> on competing hardware -- and their mainframe architecture, just like
> x86, had a wide variety of add-on features which could be tested for
> individually, just like SSE / SSE2 / SSE3 / etc.
> Instead of making compilers, AMD chose to suport PathScale (now
> SiCortex), PGI, and gcc, all of which also have Intel-specific
Probably AMD had been thinking hard on this and decided to make compilers at
> As for the blog posting, you shouldn't draw general conclusions from a
> single toy test-case. And I think you'll find all compilers will do a
> much better job if they know at compile-time that it's x**(-2)... so
> if that's your real app, don't code it like that toy.
> -- greg
> Beowulf mailing list, Beowulf at beowulf.org sponsored by Penguin Computing
> To change your subscription (digest mode or unsubscribe) visit
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Beowulf