News Focus
News Focus
icon url

spokeshave

05/01/03 11:23 AM

#3616 RE: wbmw #3615

icon url

fyodor

05/01/03 11:38 AM

#3620 RE: wbmw #3615

wbmw: AMD has never released a compiler before. Intel has done compilers for years. You cannot expect AMD to get the same level of performance and optimizations on their first try. It's just wishful thinking on your part.

Wishful thinking my *ss.

You would seem to be putting words in my mouth, which I would rather you did not. At no point have I said that AMD would make their own compiler - nor even hint that they had the capabilities to do so.

As for your remaining argument, you are making the incorrect assumption that AMD do not "help" software companies (including Microsoft, both Windows in general and their compilers) with teams of dedicated software engineers. AMD has done this for *years*, so there is no "first try".

Of course, Intel also does this - and to a much greater degree (they do have more resources, after all). The problem with the compiler is that Intel has, and sells, their own compiler, so I am not sure if Microsoft allows them to "contribute" to its compiler. In the end, Intel might not even *want* to.

-fyo
icon url

chipguy

05/01/03 11:45 AM

#3621 RE: wbmw #3615

Doing compilers seriously is also a big and expensive effort. Last I heard Intel's
compiler group is about 150 strong and that was before the Compaq compiler
people came on board. And Intel still funds outside compiler efforts for its uPs
like the ORC work at the Chinese Academy of Science. Similarly HP has its own
first class compiler team yet also funds the IMPACT team at UIUC.

Given AMD's size and profitability track record I don't see how it could afford a
serious and sustained effort rolling its own compilers.