4 ms·
> You can't just release a CPU for which there is no operating system sure you can. That's what compilers are for.
by throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
> You can't just release a CPU for which there is no operating system
sure you can. That's what compilers are for.
- loeg 6y agoGP probably means that you won't be able to sell it, even if there is a compiler. (Not true in the super embedded space, sure.)
- skavi 6y agoIntel had such an attitude once before.
- throwaway_pdp09 6y agoDonald Knuth said "The Itanium approach...was supposed to be so terrific—until it turned out that the wished-for compilers were basically impossible to write."[82] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Itanic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Itanic So they didn't have the needed compiler
- pjmlp 6y agoI wonder how HP and Microsoft managed to port HP-UX and Windows without a compiler.
- Dylan16807 6y agoThat's kind of the point. Compilers existed just fine to do the porting, and solved that problem. Intel's failure is that they were unable to solve a different problem because that compiler didn't exist, one that went well beyond merely porting. In other words, "That's what compilers are for." is a perfectly fine attitude when those compilers exist, and a bad attitude when they don't exist. Porting is the former, making VLIW efficient is the latter.
- The_Colonel 6y agoSurely there were compilers, they just weren't as good (as optimizing) as Intel wished.
- throwaway_pdp09 6y agoOf course there were itanic-targetting compilers, they worked, just not well enough to deliver on marketing promise (edit: and what the hardware was theoretically capable of).