dirtypersian

4 ms·

1.
by dirtypersian 5y ago
Are you still having trouble with this? Let me know, I might be able to help out.
2.
by dirtypersian 5y ago
lol what makes you say that? I'd consider apple TV, apple music, apple maps, etc all as services. What is your definition of "services" and do the ones I listed fall into your definition.
3.
by dirtypersian 5y ago
Well, no shit. I was pointing out that they're placing more and more importance on being a services company rather than a hardware/product company. As that emphasis on services grows they'll probably switch to their own silic
4.
by dirtypersian 5y ago
It's coming. My prediction is Apple will start doing server chips not too long from now, at least for internal use. This is going to be especially important as they emphasize their services more and more over their hardware.
5.
by dirtypersian 5y ago
They already offer it to a lot of manufacturers but they mostly refuse. Prime example of this was Porsche. I still can't believe they turned down that offer.
6.
by dirtypersian 5y ago
I think it will be a big factor. Yes, they are two separate things in the car industry. But if I have a choice between two EVs, one with self driving and another with no self driving you bet I'm going to pick the one with self driving
7.
by dirtypersian 5y ago
I don't know about that. Sure, the F-150 is a nice option but what is Ford doing in terms of self driving. Tesla is tackling multiple issues at the same time, most car companies playing catch up usually just care about the EV part but
8.
by dirtypersian 5y ago
Yep, this is exactly why I left my last startup. Relevant: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Founder%27s_syndrome#:~:text=F... .
9.
by dirtypersian 6y ago
I would guess the processor would just cause an exception/interrupt and it would just call an OS level exception/interrupt handler which would probably tell the user what the exception/interrupt was that occured; in this case
10.
by dirtypersian 6y ago
Do you have a source that they don't already support some sort of SVE? I don't think they would make this public information if they don't have to. As far as I can tell they wouldn't need to recompile any previous ARM bi
11.
by dirtypersian 6y ago
Who says they don't already support SVE; is it publicly known they support it or not? Especially if the binary doesn't have to be recompiled you'd never know whether they implemented it or not right?
12.
by dirtypersian 6y ago
"RISC CPUs have a choice. So e.g. smaller ARM CPUs don’t use micro-ops at all. But that also means they cannot do things such as OoO." I don't agree with this. What do uops have anything to do with ooo execution. I can easily
13.
by dirtypersian 6y ago
> It's really 'Apple Silicon' and not just ARM. Yeah, I think that's key to understanding this. They are supporting a version of ARM ISA running that maintains TSO even though official ARM doesn't need to support
14.
by dirtypersian 6y ago
I think I understand now. Rosetta is just doing translation from x86 to ARM; however, native ARM doesn't have a notion of TSO which means they're still putting in the logic to maintain TSO just to assist with the better emulation
15.
by dirtypersian 6y ago
so you're saying somehow Rosetta2 is looking at an x86 binary and figuring out exactly which portions of the program rely on the TSO ordering for correctness and then dynamically switches to weak ordering for parts that might be able t
16.
by dirtypersian 6y ago
I didn't really understand the TSO explanation given in this article and found it to be a bit hand-wavy. The article says to emulate the x86 TSO consistency model on an ARM machine which is weakly ordered you have to add a bunch of ins
17.
by dirtypersian 6y ago
Just to be clear, the RAM/memory and cache are not on the same chip/die/silicon. They are part of the same packaging though. > which keeps the memory between caches and the system memory/RAM coherent Isn't this a
18.
by dirtypersian 6y ago
Curious question, is it just I2S that is used for this purpose? I'd assume you could use any serial protocol for bit banging purposes right?
19.
by dirtypersian 6y ago
I used to work in Austin. I always thought Austin was the Atom HQ of sorts because that was where ARM was also located. And at the time it seemed like Austin was the mobile epicenter of the chip world. But yeah, at Intel there has always be
20.
by dirtypersian 6y ago
vote the right people in to power!
21.
by dirtypersian 6y ago
I believe it might come from the fact that this process of going from high level programming language to hardware is called "high level synthesis". I think the "X" is meant to make it more generic, i.e. X level synthesis