 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp <war### [at] tag povrayorg> wrote:
> I will be willing to get your points when you show me some actual concrete
> *proof*. For example, I would be *really* interested in seeing some proof
> about the linux community planning to completely drop support for programs
> using the FPU.
Why is it *my* job to give *proof*?
I just tried to explain how things we both know only from 3rd hand *might* fit
and make *some* sense, which you boldly claimed they'd make *no* sense at all.
That's all the point I am trying to make, and I think I have given proof enough
that there *may* be some sense to it. Take that from me or leave it.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel wrote:
> through what the consequences would be if someone would actually do it. ;)
> I'd be very interested in what Chris has to say about it. He seems a bit
> quite.
From my point of view distributing changed files amongst collaborators who
are working on fixing stuff in POV (with the intention of submitting fixes
to us) is clearly OK, though as pointed out this isn't how the source
distribution rules are worded. I'll revise this in the next source release
(and also make clear that it's allowed to post updated files here on the
server).
-- Chris
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chris Cason <del### [at] deletethistoopovrayorg> wrote:
> From my point of view distributing changed files amongst collaborators who
> are working on fixing stuff in POV (with the intention of submitting fixes
> to us) is clearly OK, though as pointed out this isn't how the source
> distribution rules are worded. I'll revise this in the next source release
> (and also make clear that it's allowed to post updated files here on the
> server).
Good to know - I guess I might make use of it occasionally... unless it makes
sense to wait for the next beta, that is (hint! ;))
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Warp [mailto:war### [at] tagpovrayorg]
> Even Windows Vista can run Windows 1.0 software (with some
tweaking).
> Just google for it.
Unless it's Vista 64, in which case you can't run 16 bit software.
...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Warp [mailto:war### [at] tagpovrayorg]
> And as long as the OS is run on a system with FPU and with programs
> using
> the FPU, the OS cannot drop support. It's that simple.
Minor nitpick... it's not about dropping the FPU, because it's the same
FPU that runs x87 as well as SSE/2/3/4. They're the same transistors.
What's being deprecated is the instruction set, not the component of the
CPU.
...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Warp [mailto:war### [at] tagpovrayorg]
> So the hardware would be perfectly able to run the software, but the
> OS deliberately stops the software from being run if it uses the FPU.
> And this makes sense?
They don't deliberately stop it from working. What's being considered
(although not implemented yet) is simply not doing the work to make it
keep working.
...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Warp [mailto:war### [at] tagpovrayorg]
> At least in the past Intel processors had the strange rule that you
> cannot
> use the FPU and the SSE unit at the same time. I don't know if they
> have
> fixed that limitation later.
No, you had to switch modes (and deal with saving state et al). Mainly
because... wait for it... it's the same unit!
X87 and SSE both use the same units on the processor. Even MMX shared
the same units (to some extremely limited extent). You can't use them
both at the same time, because of the operating mode (like 16bit and
32bit code, you can't run them both at the same time, though you *could*
switch between them).
...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Warp [mailto:war### [at] tagpovrayorg]
> Maybe it's different in a x86-64 architecture, but at least in my
P4,
Please use a modern processor when discussing future plans for
processors.
That's like basing your claims for Windows 7 on what Windows 2000 looked
like.
...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Warp [mailto:war### [at] tagpovrayorg]
> > Maybe it's different in a x86-64 architecture, but at least in my
> P4,
> Please use a modern processor when discussing future plans for
> processors.
I was not talking about plans for processors. I was talking about the
claim that *operating systems* (including linux) are going to drop support
for the FPU even on architectures which do have a perfectly good FPU (ie.
every single current Intel and AMD processor). I find this claim ludicrous,
especially for linux (which aims for maximal portability).
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Warp [mailto:war### [at] tagpovrayorg]
> I was not talking about plans for processors. I was talking about
the
> claim that *operating systems* (including linux) are going to drop
> support
> for the FPU even on architectures which do have a perfectly good FPU
> (ie.
> every single current Intel and AMD processor). I find this claim
> ludicrous,
> especially for linux (which aims for maximal portability).
Oh, it definitely is ludicrous.
The Wikipedia article on x87 clearly states that "The x87 unit is
largely deprecated on the 64-bit x86-64 architecture and associated
64-bit implementations of operating systems such as Microsoft Windows,
Mac OS X, Solaris, and Linux though it is still well supported for full
compatibility with older applications."
...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
