Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 08:20:18 03/06/03
Go up one level in this thread
On March 06, 2003 at 09:37:36, Daniel Clausen wrote: >On March 05, 2003 at 11:45:20, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >[snip] > >>>When you don't check the CPUID flags before using certain instructions, you >>>are the one walking across the street without checking for traffic. >> >> >>You think the average programmer understands that? I don't think the average >>programmer even understands assembly language, much less that different >>processors might have different instruction sets even though they are called >>"compatible". > >My native language is not English, but what you (Bob) refer to with 'being >compatible' is 'being identical' in my book. Saying AMD is not compatible here >is like saying Non-IE browsers don't parse HTML right. Not parsing HTML right >(which most of the time is not even HTML really) and not displaying them like IE >does is not the same thing. > >You're right - for the average user it's the same. (that happens when one >competitor has such a huge market share...) It shouldn't for the "average >programmer who programs in assembler though". At least I wouldn't want to work >with these people in "my" team. ;) Unfortunately (for AMD in this case) the way >you define it, the only compatible chips can only come from one vendor, and that >is Intel. Next time, someone will blame AMD-chips because they don't write >"Intel" on their chips, because that can confuse the "average person" and make >her think it's not a CPU. > >Sargon That was the only problem I was trying to point out. "Compatible" != "_really_ compatible" and that's bad for the non-assembly-programmer types, as they have no idea what the compiler is doing other than it is producing something that will supposedly execute on the target architecture.
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.