Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.sys.mac.system > #96348 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Electric Comet <electric-comet@mail.invalid> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-11-02 10:44 -0700 |
| Last post | 2016-11-24 11:33 -0500 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 99 — 14 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.mac.system
arm for the entire product line Electric Comet <electric-comet@mail.invalid> - 2016-11-02 10:44 -0700
Re: arm for the entire product line android <here@there.was> - 2016-11-02 19:12 +0100
Re: arm for the entire product line Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2016-11-02 18:27 +0000
Re: arm for the entire product line Electric Comet <electric-comet@mail.invalid> - 2016-11-02 15:21 -0700
Re: arm for the entire product line Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2016-11-03 13:12 +1300
Re: arm for the entire product line JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2016-11-05 00:56 -0400
Re: arm for the entire product line Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2016-11-05 18:51 +1300
Re: arm for the entire product line Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2016-11-05 11:19 -0400
Re: arm for the entire product line Calum <com.gmail@nospam.scottishwildcat> - 2016-11-06 20:22 +0000
Re: arm for the entire product line Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2016-11-07 14:13 +1300
Re: arm for the entire product line Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2016-11-05 11:19 -0400
Re: arm for the entire product line Doc O'Leary <droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com> - 2016-11-05 15:31 +0000
Re: arm for the entire product line Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2016-11-05 11:41 -0400
Re: arm for the entire product line Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2016-11-03 08:44 +1300
Re: arm for the entire product line Electric Comet <electric-comet@mail.invalid> - 2016-11-02 15:18 -0700
Re: arm for the entire product line Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2016-11-03 13:07 +1300
Re: arm for the entire product line Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2016-11-03 01:54 +0000
Re: arm for the entire product line Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2016-11-03 16:51 -0400
Re: arm for the entire product line Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2016-11-04 18:11 +0000
Re: arm for the entire product line Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2016-11-05 10:55 -0400
Re: arm for the entire product line Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2016-11-05 15:09 +0000
Re: arm for the entire product line Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2016-11-05 11:23 -0400
Re: arm for the entire product line Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2016-11-05 15:28 +0000
Re: arm for the entire product line Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2016-11-05 11:37 -0400
Re: arm for the entire product line Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2016-11-05 13:52 -0400
Re: arm for the entire product line JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2016-11-05 23:20 -0400
Re: arm for the entire product line Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2016-11-06 03:37 +0000
Re: arm for the entire product line dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) - 2016-11-06 17:53 +1300
Re: arm for the entire product line Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2016-11-07 03:05 +0000
Re: arm for the entire product line dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) - 2016-11-07 17:12 +1300
Re: arm for the entire product line Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2016-11-07 05:32 +0000
Re: arm for the entire product line JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2016-11-07 11:22 -0500
Re: arm for the entire product line Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2016-11-07 16:37 +0000
Re: arm for the entire product line Doc O'Leary <droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com> - 2016-11-08 16:16 +0000
Re: arm for the entire product line Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2016-11-09 09:10 +1300
Re: arm for the entire product line Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2016-11-08 19:08 -0500
Re: arm for the entire product line JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2016-11-09 13:04 -0500
Re: arm for the entire product line Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2016-11-08 18:58 -0500
Re: arm for the entire product line Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2016-11-07 17:28 -0500
Re: arm for the entire product line dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) - 2016-11-08 12:49 +1300
Re: arm for the entire product line Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2016-11-07 19:06 -0500
Re: arm for the entire product line Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2016-11-08 02:45 +0000
Re: arm for the entire product line Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2016-11-08 19:15 -0500
Re: arm for the entire product line Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2016-11-09 00:29 +0000
Re: arm for the entire product line Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2016-11-08 18:17 +0000
Re: arm for the entire product line Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2016-11-08 19:09 -0500
Re: arm for the entire product line JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2016-11-08 10:44 -0500
Re: arm for the entire product line Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2016-11-08 18:17 +0000
Re: arm for the entire product line Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2016-11-08 19:11 -0500
Re: arm for the entire product line JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2016-11-09 13:12 -0500
Re: arm for the entire product line Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2016-11-09 00:28 +0000
Re: arm for the entire product line JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2016-11-09 13:17 -0500
Re: arm for the entire product line Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2016-11-07 11:52 +0000
Re: arm for the entire product line Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2016-11-06 07:02 +0000
Re: arm for the entire product line JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2016-11-05 12:04 -0400
Re: arm for the entire product line Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2016-11-05 12:25 -0400
Re: arm for the entire product line JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2016-11-05 11:58 -0400
Re: arm for the entire product line Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2016-11-05 12:17 -0400
Re: arm for the entire product line dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) - 2016-11-06 12:08 +1300
Re: arm for the entire product line Electric Comet <electric-comet@mail.invalid> - 2016-11-12 10:26 -0800
Re: arm for the entire product line Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2016-11-02 19:31 -0400
Re: arm for the entire product line Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2016-11-02 19:43 -0400
Re: arm for the entire product line nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-11-03 00:25 -0400
Re: arm for the entire product line Electric Comet <electric-comet@mail.invalid> - 2016-11-03 08:45 -0700
Re: arm for the entire product line nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-11-03 11:52 -0400
Re: arm for the entire product line Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2016-11-03 17:07 -0400
Re: arm for the entire product line Electric Comet <electric-comet@mail.invalid> - 2016-11-03 08:40 -0700
Re: arm for the entire product line nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-11-03 11:52 -0400
Re: arm for the entire product line Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2016-11-03 17:48 +0000
Re: arm for the entire product line nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-11-03 13:51 -0400
Re: arm for the entire product line Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-05 10:51 -0700
Re: arm for the entire product line nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-11-05 14:16 -0400
Re: arm for the entire product line Electric Comet <electric-comet@mail.invalid> - 2016-11-23 16:24 -0800
Re: arm for the entire product line Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-23 20:17 -0800
Re: arm for the entire product line onion@anon.invalid (Mr On!on) - 2016-11-24 10:45 +0000
Re: arm for the entire product line Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-24 03:39 -0800
Re: arm for the entire product line onion@anon.invalid (Mr On!on) - 2016-11-24 15:58 +0000
Re: arm for the entire product line Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-24 08:44 -0800
Re: arm for the entire product line onion@anon.invalid (Mr On!on) - 2016-11-24 17:53 +0000
Re: arm for the entire product line Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-24 15:40 -0800
Re: arm for the entire product line onion@anon.invalid (Mr On!on) - 2016-11-24 23:55 +0000
Re: arm for the entire product line Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-25 22:38 -0800
Re: arm for the entire product line onion@anon.invalid (Mr On!on) - 2016-11-26 11:01 +0000
Re: arm for the entire product line Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-26 03:34 -0800
Re: arm for the entire product line onion@anon.invalid (Mr On!on) - 2016-11-26 14:31 +0000
Re: arm for the entire product line Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-26 06:40 -0800
Re: arm for the entire product line onion@anon.invalid (Mr On!on) - 2016-11-27 11:17 +0000
Re: arm for the entire product line Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-27 04:58 -0800
Re: arm for the entire product line onion@anon.invalid (Mr On!on) - 2016-11-27 21:52 +0000
Re: arm for the entire product line dorayme <do_ray_me@bigpond.com> - 2016-11-28 09:31 +1100
Re: arm for the entire product line Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-28 09:18 -0800
Re: arm for the entire product line onion@anon.invalid (Mr On!on) - 2016-11-30 11:44 +0000
Re: arm for the entire product line Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-30 04:29 -0800
Re: arm for the entire product line onion@anon.invalid (Mr On!on) - 2016-11-30 14:11 +0000
Re: arm for the entire product line Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-30 15:53 -0800
Re: arm for the entire product line onion@anon.invalid (Mr On!on) - 2016-12-02 01:32 +0000
Re: arm for the entire product line Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2016-12-01 18:33 -0800
Re: arm for the entire product line onion@anon.invalid (Mr On!on) - 2016-12-02 23:00 +0000
Re: arm for the entire product line JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2016-11-24 11:33 -0500
Page 2 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 Next page →
| From | Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-05 15:09 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrno1rtj7.p0h.g.kreme@snow.local> |
| In reply to | #96478 |
In message <e4ydnZoTH79_b4DFnZ2dnUU7-IHNnZ2d@giganews.com> Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote: > On 2016-11-04 14:11, Lewis wrote: >> In message <J6SdnWcNuff1PobFnZ2dnUU7-bGdnZ2d@giganews.com> >> Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote: >>> On 2016-11-02 21:54, Lewis wrote: >>>> In message <nvdon4$odt$3@dont-email.me> >>>> Electric Comet <electric-comet@mail.invalid> wrote: >>>>> On Thu, 03 Nov 2016 08:44:17 +1300 >>>>> Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>>> Th rumoured switch to using Apple's own ARM chips in Mac computers is >>>> >>>>> according to recent data sierra has arm support >>>> >>>> The new Mac Pros use an ARM chip for the touchbar. >> >>> That's not what it's about, however. The reference is to Sierra itself >>> (macOS) showing support to be hosted on ARM. >> >> No, its the kernel that supports ARM which makes sense since the kernel >> is used in all the Apple products. > Distinct things. The reference to ARM Hercules is in the "Sierra > kernel" - not in the iOS or WatchOS kernels. They have a lot of > commonality but are not identical. As I said, it is in the kernel. > Sierra runs the Mac. The ARM processor in the Mac for Touch ID is > running separately from that as a device controller. They communicate > to each other via a serial interface. That ARM processor is isolated - > no different than the other ARM or other microcontrollers in a Mac. You seem to "know" a lot about how the T1 chip is integrated into macOS. And by "know", of course, I mean "are making up a load of shit with no foundation at all." -- 'Life's like a beach. And then you die.' --Small Gods
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-05 11:23 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <_-ydnZRKVY7wZIDFnZ2dnUU7-TOdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #96483 |
On 2016-11-05 11:09, Lewis wrote: > In message <e4ydnZoTH79_b4DFnZ2dnUU7-IHNnZ2d@giganews.com> > Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote: >> On 2016-11-04 14:11, Lewis wrote: >>> In message <J6SdnWcNuff1PobFnZ2dnUU7-bGdnZ2d@giganews.com> >>> Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote: >>>> On 2016-11-02 21:54, Lewis wrote: >>>>> In message <nvdon4$odt$3@dont-email.me> >>>>> Electric Comet <electric-comet@mail.invalid> wrote: >>>>>> On Thu, 03 Nov 2016 08:44:17 +1300 >>>>>> Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>> Th rumoured switch to using Apple's own ARM chips in Mac computers is >>>>> >>>>>> according to recent data sierra has arm support >>>>> >>>>> The new Mac Pros use an ARM chip for the touchbar. >>> >>>> That's not what it's about, however. The reference is to Sierra itself >>>> (macOS) showing support to be hosted on ARM. >>> >>> No, its the kernel that supports ARM which makes sense since the kernel >>> is used in all the Apple products. > >> Distinct things. The reference to ARM Hercules is in the "Sierra >> kernel" - not in the iOS or WatchOS kernels. They have a lot of >> commonality but are not identical. > > As I said, it is in the kernel. And you are wrong. That's why I posted that image so that you could see it referred to the Mac OS 10_12 kernel. That is distinct from the kernel versions in iOS and Watch OS and AppleTV. You can snip that relevance out, but that would be your problem. > >> Sierra runs the Mac. The ARM processor in the Mac for Touch ID is >> running separately from that as a device controller. They communicate >> to each other via a serial interface. That ARM processor is isolated - >> no different than the other ARM or other microcontrollers in a Mac. > > You seem to "know" a lot about how the T1 chip is integrated into macOS. > And by "know", of course, I mean "are making up a load of shit with no > foundation at all." It's perfectly clear that the Touch Bar sensor ARM is running as a peripheral device within the Mac. No different than all the other microcontrollers in a Mac which each run their own OS' independently of MacOS. -- She hummed to herself because she was an unrivaled botcher of lyrics. -Nick (Gone Girl), Gillian Flynn.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-05 15:28 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrno1rulg.p0h.g.kreme@snow.local> |
| In reply to | #96487 |
In message <_-ydnZRKVY7wZIDFnZ2dnUU7-TOdnZ2d@giganews.com> Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote: > On 2016-11-05 11:09, Lewis wrote: >> In message <e4ydnZoTH79_b4DFnZ2dnUU7-IHNnZ2d@giganews.com> >> Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote: >>> On 2016-11-04 14:11, Lewis wrote: >>>> In message <J6SdnWcNuff1PobFnZ2dnUU7-bGdnZ2d@giganews.com> >>>> Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote: >>>>> On 2016-11-02 21:54, Lewis wrote: >>>>>> In message <nvdon4$odt$3@dont-email.me> >>>>>> Electric Comet <electric-comet@mail.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>> On Thu, 03 Nov 2016 08:44:17 +1300 >>>>>>> Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>> Th rumoured switch to using Apple's own ARM chips in Mac computers is >>>>>> >>>>>>> according to recent data sierra has arm support >>>>>> >>>>>> The new Mac Pros use an ARM chip for the touchbar. >>>> >>>>> That's not what it's about, however. The reference is to Sierra itself >>>>> (macOS) showing support to be hosted on ARM. >>>> >>>> No, its the kernel that supports ARM which makes sense since the kernel >>>> is used in all the Apple products. >> >>> Distinct things. The reference to ARM Hercules is in the "Sierra >>> kernel" - not in the iOS or WatchOS kernels. They have a lot of >>> commonality but are not identical. >> >> As I said, it is in the kernel. > And you are wrong. That's why I posted that image so that you could see > it referred to the Mac OS 10_12 kernel. That is distinct from the > kernel versions in iOS and Watch OS and AppleTV. I said it'sin the kernel. You said it;'s in the kernel. I said, "as I said, it's in the kernel" and you say that I'm wrong. Have fun. -- You came in that thing? You're braver than I thought!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-05 11:37 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <P-Wdnd_FIrlbYYDFnZ2dnUU7-U9i4p2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #96490 |
On 2016-11-05 11:28, Lewis wrote:
> In message <_-ydnZRKVY7wZIDFnZ2dnUU7-TOdnZ2d@giganews.com>
> Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
>> On 2016-11-05 11:09, Lewis wrote:
>>> In message <e4ydnZoTH79_b4DFnZ2dnUU7-IHNnZ2d@giganews.com>
>>> Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
>>>> On 2016-11-04 14:11, Lewis wrote:
>>>>> In message <J6SdnWcNuff1PobFnZ2dnUU7-bGdnZ2d@giganews.com>
>>>>> Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
>>>>>> On 2016-11-02 21:54, Lewis wrote:
>>>>>>> In message <nvdon4$odt$3@dont-email.me>
>>>>>>> Electric Comet <electric-comet@mail.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Thu, 03 Nov 2016 08:44:17 +1300
>>>>>>>> Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Th rumoured switch to using Apple's own ARM chips in Mac computers is
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> according to recent data sierra has arm support
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The new Mac Pros use an ARM chip for the touchbar.
>>>>>
>>>>>> That's not what it's about, however. The reference is to Sierra itself
>>>>>> (macOS) showing support to be hosted on ARM.
>>>>>
>>>>> No, its the kernel that supports ARM which makes sense since the kernel [ 1 ]
================================
>>>>> is used in all the Apple products.
>>>
>>>> Distinct things. The reference to ARM Hercules is in the "Sierra
>>>> kernel" - not in the iOS or WatchOS kernels. They have a lot of
>>>> commonality but are not identical.
>>>
>>> As I said, it is in the kernel.
>
>> And you are wrong. That's why I posted that image so that you could see
>> it referred to the Mac OS 10_12 kernel. That is distinct from the
>> kernel versions in iOS and Watch OS and AppleTV.
>
> I said it'sin the kernel. You said it;'s in the kernel. I said, "as I
> said, it's in the kernel" and you say that I'm wrong.
No. I qualified it by stating the MacOS10_12 kernel. It is not the
same kernel used in ARM devices. The source code may be 90 or even 99%
common - but it is not the same kernel.
See above [ 1 ] where you made your fundamental blunder. Again: it is
not the kernel for ARM. It is the kernel for Sierra that was mentioned
in the original post. Nothing at all to do with ARM.
--
She hummed to herself because she was an unrivaled botcher of lyrics.
-Nick (Gone Girl), Gillian Flynn.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-05 13:52 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <xOGdnW9s0Zf7gYPFnZ2dnUU7-QGdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #96494 |
On 2016-11-05 11:37, Alan Browne wrote: > On 2016-11-05 11:28, Lewis wrote: >> In message <_-ydnZRKVY7wZIDFnZ2dnUU7-TOdnZ2d@giganews.com> >> Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote: >>> On 2016-11-05 11:09, Lewis wrote: >>>> In message <e4ydnZoTH79_b4DFnZ2dnUU7-IHNnZ2d@giganews.com> >>>> Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote: >>>>> On 2016-11-04 14:11, Lewis wrote: >>>>>> In message <J6SdnWcNuff1PobFnZ2dnUU7-bGdnZ2d@giganews.com> >>>>>> Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote: >>>>>>> On 2016-11-02 21:54, Lewis wrote: >>>>>>>> In message <nvdon4$odt$3@dont-email.me> >>>>>>>> Electric Comet <electric-comet@mail.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Thu, 03 Nov 2016 08:44:17 +1300 >>>>>>>>> Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Th rumoured switch to using Apple's own ARM chips in Mac >>>>>>>>>> computers is >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> according to recent data sierra has arm support >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The new Mac Pros use an ARM chip for the touchbar. >>>>>> >>>>>>> That's not what it's about, however. The reference is to Sierra >>>>>>> itself >>>>>>> (macOS) showing support to be hosted on ARM. >>>>>> >>>>>> No, its the kernel that supports ARM which makes sense since the >>>>>> kernel [ 1 ] > ================================ >>>>>> is used in all the Apple products. >>>> >>>>> Distinct things. The reference to ARM Hercules is in the "Sierra >>>>> kernel" - not in the iOS or WatchOS kernels. They have a lot of >>>>> commonality but are not identical. >>>> >>>> As I said, it is in the kernel. >> >>> And you are wrong. That's why I posted that image so that you could see >>> it referred to the Mac OS 10_12 kernel. That is distinct from the >>> kernel versions in iOS and Watch OS and AppleTV. >> >> I said it'sin the kernel. You said it;'s in the kernel. I said, "as I >> said, it's in the kernel" and you say that I'm wrong. > > No. I qualified it by stating the MacOS10_12 kernel. It is not the > same kernel used in ARM devices. The source code may be 90 or even 99% > common - but it is not the same kernel. > > See above [ 1 ] where you made your fundamental blunder. Again: it is > not the kernel for ARM. It is the kernel for Sierra that was mentioned > in the original post. Nothing at all to do with ARM. restated for clarity: See above [ 1 ] where you made your fundamental blunder. Again: it is not the kernel for the Touch Bar ARM. It is the kernel for Sierra that was mentioned in the original post. Nothing at all to do with the Touch Bar ARM. -- She hummed to herself because she was an unrivaled botcher of lyrics. -Nick (Gone Girl), Gillian Flynn.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-05 23:20 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <581ea174$0$36018$c3e8da3$76a7c58f@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #96510 |
On 2016-11-05 13:52, Alan Browne wrote: > See above [ 1 ] where you made your fundamental blunder. Again: it is > not the kernel for the Touch Bar ARM. It is the kernel for Sierra that > was mentioned in the original post. Nothing at all to do with the Touch > Bar ARM. Just because the page's title says "Sierra" does not mean that this file isn't shared with orther instances. There may be a central "real" code repository where it is the same file for multiple instances, but when they populate the web interface, they copy the files needed for Siera in a Sierra specific web interface, copy the file needed for IOS in an IOS specific web directory etc. So you may see distinct files where they are in fact from the same source.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-06 03:37 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <e87mrmF3tdrU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #96544 |
On 2016-11-06, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote: > On 2016-11-05 13:52, Alan Browne wrote: > >> See above [ 1 ] where you made your fundamental blunder. Again: it is >> not the kernel for the Touch Bar ARM. It is the kernel for Sierra that >> was mentioned in the original post. Nothing at all to do with the Touch >> Bar ARM. > > Just because the page's title says "Sierra" does not mean that this file > isn't shared with orther instances. > > There may be a central "real" code repository where it is the same file > for multiple instances, but when they populate the web interface, they > copy the files needed for Siera in a Sierra specific web interface, copy > the file needed for IOS in an IOS specific web directory etc. So you may > see distinct files where they are in fact from the same source. Talk about the blind leading the blind. You two deserve each other. -- E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter. I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead. JR
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-06 17:53 +1300 |
| Message-ID | <1mwazgj.diq3wa1mvqm0pN%dempson@actrix.gen.nz> |
| In reply to | #96544 |
JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:
> On 2016-11-05 13:52, Alan Browne wrote:
>
> > See above [ 1 ] where you made your fundamental blunder. Again: it is
> > not the kernel for the Touch Bar ARM. It is the kernel for Sierra that
> > was mentioned in the original post. Nothing at all to do with the Touch
> > Bar ARM.
>
> Just because the page's title says "Sierra" does not mean that this file
> isn't shared with orther instances.
Did you not see my most recent post in this thread? This file _is_
shared with other instances: it is identical to the corresponding file
in the current version of the iOS SDK.
Earlier versions of this file gained references to ARM after the
introduction of the iPhone, and were updated with details about new ARM
processors as Apple used new ARM variants in iOS.
> There may be a central "real" code repository where it is the same file
> for multiple instances, but when they populate the web interface, they
> copy the files needed for Siera in a Sierra specific web interface, copy
> the file needed for IOS in an IOS specific web directory etc. So you may
> see distinct files where they are in fact from the same source.
iOS and macOS share much of the kernel. The /usr/include/mach/machine.h
file defines identifiers used to detect the machine type on which the
Mach kernel is running.
Given the shared nature of the kernel code, it is in no way surprising
that they both have the same header file, even if much of what is in
that file is only applicable on a particular platform.
While I'm explaining this in detail, I did a search in Xcode.app for
other copies of machine.h.
Guess what? I found identical copies at each of these paths:
/Applications/Xcode.app/Contents/Developer/Platforms/AppleTVOS.platform/Developer/SDKs/AppleTVOS.sdk/usr/include/mach/machine.h
/Applications/Xcode.app/Contents/Developer/Platforms/AppleTVSimulator.platform/Developer/SDKs/AppleTVSimulator.sdk/usr/include/mach/machine.h
/Applications/Xcode.app/Contents/Developer/Platforms/iPhoneOS.platform/Developer/SDKs/iPhoneOS.sdk/usr/include/mach/machine.h
/Applications/Xcode.app/Contents/Developer/iPhoneSimulator.platform/Developer/SDKs/iPhoneSimulator.sdk/usr/include/mach/machine.h
/Applications/Xcode.app/Contents/Developer/Platforms/MacOSX.platform/Developer/SDKs/MacOSX.sdk/System/Library/Frameworks/Kernel.framework/Versions/A/Headers/mach/machine.h
/Applications/Xcode.app/Contents/Developer/Platforms/MacOSX.platform/Developer/SDKs/MacOSX.sdk/usr/include/mach/machine.h
/Applications/Xcode.app/Contents/Developer/Platforms/WatchOS.platform/Developer/SDKs/WatchOS.sdk/usr/include/mach/machine.h
/Applications/Xcode.app/Contents/Developer/Platforms/WatchSimulator.platform/Developer/SDKs/WatchSimulator.sdk/usr/include/mach/machine.h
To clarify for those unable to read the fiery letters, that's the
software development kits for tvOS, iOS ("iPhoneOS") and watchOS, the
simulators for each of those platforms, plus the macOS SDK, and the
macOS Kernel SDK.
All of them have exactly the same content in their machine.h files.
--
David Empson
dempson@actrix.gen.nz
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-07 03:05 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <e8a9cgFmkm6U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #96546 |
On 2016-11-06, David Empson <dempson@actrix.gen.nz> wrote:
> JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:
>>
>> Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah...
>
> To clarify for those unable to read the fiery letters, that's the
> software development kits for tvOS, iOS ("iPhoneOS") and watchOS, the
> simulators for each of those platforms, plus the macOS SDK, and the
> macOS Kernel SDK.
>
> All of them have exactly the same content in their machine.h files.
Is this really big news to anyone at all? It's hard to believe there is
anyone here who isn't aware of how this stuff works. The concept of
reusable code isn't exactly hard to grasp. Then again, this is JF
Mezei...
--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.
JR
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-07 17:12 +1300 |
| Message-ID | <1mwcqms.1cikziwicuwryN%dempson@actrix.gen.nz> |
| In reply to | #96601 |
Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
> On 2016-11-06, David Empson <dempson@actrix.gen.nz> wrote:
> > JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:
> >>
> >> Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah...
> >
> > To clarify for those unable to read the fiery letters, that's the
> > software development kits for tvOS, iOS ("iPhoneOS") and watchOS, the
> > simulators for each of those platforms, plus the macOS SDK, and the
> > macOS Kernel SDK.
> >
> > All of them have exactly the same content in their machine.h files.
>
> Is this really big news to anyone at all?
It shouldn't be, for anyone capable of reading source files or who
understands the concept of cross-platform software development with a
common core of code.
> It's hard to believe there is anyone here who isn't aware of how this
> stuff works. The concept of reusable code isn't exactly hard to grasp.
Not everyone reading these groups is a programmer, but I'm baffled how
someone like Alan Browne who claims to be a programmer could keep making
such a silly argument about Sierra supporting ARM when it is easy to
find evidence of it being a small addition to a cross-platform file.
Others then take that misinformation and run with it.
Hence my posting of technical details rather than just arguing, which as
usual seems to be going around in circles.
> Then again, this is JF Mezei...
JF Mezei was at least heading in the right direction, but from a
position of speculation rather than looking for actual evidence.
--
David Empson
dempson@actrix.gen.nz
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-07 05:32 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <e8ai00Foff0U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #96607 |
On 2016-11-07, David Empson <dempson@actrix.gen.nz> wrote:
> Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2016-11-06, David Empson <dempson@actrix.gen.nz> wrote:
>> > JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah...
>> >
>> > To clarify for those unable to read the fiery letters, that's the
>> > software development kits for tvOS, iOS ("iPhoneOS") and watchOS, the
>> > simulators for each of those platforms, plus the macOS SDK, and the
>> > macOS Kernel SDK.
>> >
>> > All of them have exactly the same content in their machine.h files.
>>
>> Is this really big news to anyone at all?
>
> It shouldn't be, for anyone capable of reading source files or who
> understands the concept of cross-platform software development with a
> common core of code.
>
>> It's hard to believe there is anyone here who isn't aware of how this
>> stuff works. The concept of reusable code isn't exactly hard to grasp.
>
> Not everyone reading these groups is a programmer, but I'm baffled how
> someone like Alan Browne who claims to be a programmer could keep making
> such a silly argument about Sierra supporting ARM when it is easy to
> find evidence of it being a small addition to a cross-platform file.
> Others then take that misinformation and run with it.
>
> Hence my posting of technical details rather than just arguing, which as
> usual seems to be going around in circles.
Thanks. You've got more patience than me.
>> Then again, this is JF Mezei...
>
> JF Mezei was at least heading in the right direction, but from a
> position of speculation rather than looking for actual evidence.
It's seemingly done from a position of fear that Apple will move the Mac
platform to ARM-based designs in a way that hurts customers. Judging by
Apple's previous transitions, that fear and speculation seem both
premature and foolish. History shows if anyone can make a platform
transition go relatively smoothly, it's Apple.
--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.
JR
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-07 11:22 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <5820aa3e$0$37099$b1db1813$65575428@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #96609 |
On 2016-11-07 00:32, Jolly Roger wrote: > It's seemingly done from a position of fear that Apple will move the Mac > platform to ARM-based designs in a way that hurts customers. You are the one speculating on motives. If Apple's Axx chips outperform the Intel ones at a lower cost, it makes sense for Apple to move its desktops to it. But there are a lot of variables for Apple to consider. It is one thing to design a chip and a couple of variants all aimed at portable devices, and another to design a range of chips that go from handheld to powerful desktops. It can be done, but do the volumes justify the costs ? Consider the MacPro. Shirley, Apple can't justify designing a high end competitor to Xeon class chips for so few units shipped. One popssibility would be for Apple to design a single high end desktop chip and simply offer lower clock rates on iMacs and Mac Mini. (This makes sense from a yield point of view since you can use chips with small defects which woudln't run on MacPro and downrate them to work fine on a iMac, so production costs end up lower) Apple's previous transitions, that fear and speculation seem both > premature and foolish. History shows if anyone can make a platform > transition go relatively smoothly, it's Apple. True. But if Apple moves off x86, I suspect Intel may wake up and start to move competitively and agressively to prevent further defections. And if Intel starts to move its ass, then performance advantage of ARM on desktop may disappear. The irony is that if Apple had had its "A chip" team at the time IBM/Motorola told it they were no longer interested in laptop form factor chips, perhaps Apple could have stuck with Power and designed its own chips.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-07 16:37 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <e8bouvF39pdU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #96621 |
JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote: > On 2016-11-07 00:32, Jolly Roger wrote: > >> It's seemingly done from a position of fear that Apple will move the Mac >> platform to ARM-based designs in a way that hurts customers. > > You are the one speculating on motives. Speculation on your motives seems much more warranted than your misguided speculation of Apple. > Bla blah blah blah blah. Whatever. -- E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter. I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead. JR
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Doc O'Leary <droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-08 16:16 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nvstpk$955$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #96621 |
For your reference, records indicate that JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote: > If Apple's Axx chips outperform the Intel ones at a lower cost, it makes > sense for Apple to move its desktops to it. Well, *maybe* it does. Raw price on a single component is only one factor in such a decision. It’s a pretty big deal for both hardware and software vendors to support an architecture change. Microsoft certainly learned that with its first pass at Surface. Apple has a better track record of doing it, but that doesn’t mean it’s as easy as flipping a switch just because you can save a couple bucks on the CPU. > It is one thing to design a chip and a > couple of variants all aimed at portable devices, and another to design > a range of chips that go from handheld to powerful desktops. Yeah, but keep in mind that even their mobile devices range all the way up to a 13” iPad Pro. That’s pretty powerful already. They’ve come a long way since the original iPhone. > One popssibility would be for Apple to design a single high end desktop > chip and simply offer lower clock rates on iMacs and Mac Mini. (This > makes sense from a yield point of view since you can use chips with > small defects which woudln't run on MacPro and downrate them to work > fine on a iMac, so production costs end up lower) Another possibility is to go back to using multiple chips instead of just multiple cores. Apple still leaves a lot on the the table when it comes to taking advantage of multiple threads of execution. If they *really* had their eyes on improving the Mac experience, they’d be doing more in that arena, regardless of whether or not they were thinking of a switch from Intel to ARM. > True. But if Apple moves off x86, I suspect Intel may wake up and start > to move competitively and agressively to prevent further defections. And > if Intel starts to move its ass, then performance advantage of ARM on > desktop may disappear. Nah. We’ve seen this before, yes, but the reliance on the x86 architecture was essentially broken when Intel sat on it’s hands as the smart phone market took off. It’s like Adobe Flash; it *could* have revamped itself in the face of the changes, but it took too long to realize it had to do that, and now it’s become irrelevant to the industry. After a decade of the mobile revolution, nobody with a brain to save Intel a second time is still working for Intel. > The irony is that if Apple had had its "A chip" team at the time > IBM/Motorola told it they were no longer interested in laptop form > factor chips, perhaps Apple could have stuck with Power and designed its > own chips. At the time, that would have been a mistake. Intel was just too big for the rest of the industry to challenge them. Thanks to the iPhone, though, it’s Apple who is now able to call the shots. Intel still has a big legacy, which is why I don’t see Apple just abandoning them for no reason (or to save a little money) any time soon. Especially in a world where Windows is still popular and where Microsoft can’t competently make their major OS market not depend on Intel. -- "Also . . . I can kill you with my brain." River Tam, Trash, Firefly
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-09 09:10 +1300 |
| Message-ID | <091120160910183805%YourName@YourISP.com> |
| In reply to | #96657 |
In article <nvstpk$955$1@dont-email.me>, Doc O'Leary <droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com> wrote: > For your reference, records indicate that > JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote: > > > > If Apple's Axx chips outperform the Intel ones at a lower cost, it makes > > sense for Apple to move its desktops to it. > > Well, *maybe* it does. Raw price on a single component is only one > factor in such a decision. It¹s a pretty big deal for both hardware > and software vendors to support an architecture change. Microsoft > certainly learned that with its first pass at Surface. Apple has a > better track record of doing it, but that doesn¹t mean it¹s as easy > as flipping a switch just because you can save a couple bucks on the > CPU. It will have little or nothing to do with saving a "couple bucks". If Apple does switch, it will be due to their Axx chips simply being a better option than the CPUs Intel are then making. It will also be because it gives Apple more control over the components, in terms of both design / evolution and timeframe schedules for releases. The problem is that Intel seems to be reaching a dead end in their chip designs. They are now mostly just "improving" rather than "innovating", and delays and long timeframes are becoming more common. With no new chips to use, Apple is stuck unable to release new computers, which then starts the whiners complaining (especially those morons on Wall Street).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-08 19:08 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <tLadnVXpFp999b_FnZ2dnUU7-WfNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #96665 |
On 2016-11-08 15:10, Your Name wrote: > In article <nvstpk$955$1@dont-email.me>, Doc O'Leary > <droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com> wrote: >> For your reference, records indicate that >> JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote: >>> >>> If Apple's Axx chips outperform the Intel ones at a lower cost, it makes >>> sense for Apple to move its desktops to it. >> >> Well, *maybe* it does. Raw price on a single component is only one >> factor in such a decision. It¹s a pretty big deal for both hardware >> and software vendors to support an architecture change. Microsoft >> certainly learned that with its first pass at Surface. Apple has a >> better track record of doing it, but that doesn¹t mean it¹s as easy >> as flipping a switch just because you can save a couple bucks on the >> CPU. > > It will have little or nothing to do with saving a "couple bucks". If > Apple does switch, it will be due to their Axx chips simply being a > better option than the CPUs Intel are then making. It will also be > because it gives Apple more control over the components, in terms of > both design / evolution and timeframe schedules for releases. > > The problem is that Intel seems to be reaching a dead end in their chip > designs. They are now mostly just "improving" rather than "innovating", > and delays and long timeframes are becoming more common. With no new > chips to use, Apple is stuck unable to release new computers, which > then starts the whiners complaining (especially those morons on Wall > Street). Foundries are approaching physical limits (Moore's Law) which inhibit raw CPU processing improvements. Other innovations that result in performance are possibly at the limit of what x86 can possibly do. Foundry limitations will affect Apple as well on the ARM side. On the one hand dies can always get bigger (more cores/functions) but on the other there's only so much you can throw onto a SOC. Unit cost is a huge driver for Apple. ARM (Ax) deliver far more bang/$ than intel's x86. Throw enough cores at it and you can outperform on a raw $ basis. For Apple this is natural for the above and of course because of their past acquisitions of at least 3 companies that specialize in CPU design. -- She hummed to herself because she was an unrivaled botcher of lyrics. -Nick (Gone Girl), Gillian Flynn.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-09 13:04 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <5823651d$0$4531$c3e8da3$b280bf18@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #96667 |
On 2016-11-08 19:08, Alan Browne wrote: > Unit cost is a huge driver for Apple. ARM (Ax) deliver far more bang/$ > than intel's x86. Throw enough cores at it and you can outperform on a > raw $ basis. Not every app scales well with multiple cores. If you need to calculate Pi to infinity, it will generally run only on a single core, so you need it to run as fast as possible to get your results quicker. Some apps scale well with multiple cores such as video processing (handbrake, and some of the Adopbe stuff). Others do not. And there is a sweet spot for a number of cores, above which access to memory starts to become a limiting factor. Back on Alpha, VMS had the ability to assign an app to a particular set of cores and the memory "local" to them, in order to greatly reduce the inter-core memory accesses. (this is one of the limitations of multi-core servers, unless you use them to run multiple separate OS instances where there is little traffic between RAM blocks attached to different controllers.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-08 18:58 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <TtCdnVcEJ84--7_FnZ2dnUU7-cvNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #96657 |
On 2016-11-08 11:16, Doc O'Leary wrote: > For your reference, records indicate that > JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote: > >> If Apple's Axx chips outperform the Intel ones at a lower cost, it makes >> sense for Apple to move its desktops to it. > > Well, *maybe* it does. Raw price on a single component is only one > factor in such a decision. It’s a pretty big deal for both hardware > and software vendors to support an architecture change. Not at all. If the s/w vendor uses XCode and up to date Cocoa framework then it will be effortless. If he sells his product via the App Store then he won't even have to manage whether the target is intel or ARM. Apple will deliver the correct version to the end user as compiled code submitted to the App Store is neither x86 nor ARM nor fish nor fowl. I've explained this to you at least 2x before but it seems to fly over your head. H/w vendors is less of an issue as Apple narrow the i/o space and compliance to their requirements is either support the open I/O or get licensed for the closed. Raw price of the component will be a huge driver since the cost at volume to have ARM's fab'd is a fraction of an intel i3. ARM cores scale up very cheaply if you need more CPU. On top of that is the control over the processor design meaning to Apple's exact/ing needs. The next obstacle for Apple will not be the CPU but the physical limitations foundries and accompanying yield issues. -- She hummed to herself because she was an unrivaled botcher of lyrics. -Nick (Gone Girl), Gillian Flynn.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-07 17:28 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <PPqdnWGxSPSbnbzFnZ2dnUU7-evNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #96607 |
On 2016-11-06 23:12, David Empson wrote:
> Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2016-11-06, David Empson <dempson@actrix.gen.nz> wrote:
>>> JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah...
>>>
>>> To clarify for those unable to read the fiery letters, that's the
>>> software development kits for tvOS, iOS ("iPhoneOS") and watchOS, the
>>> simulators for each of those platforms, plus the macOS SDK, and the
>>> macOS Kernel SDK.
>>>
>>> All of them have exactly the same content in their machine.h files.
>>
>> Is this really big news to anyone at all?
>
> It shouldn't be, for anyone capable of reading source files or who
> understands the concept of cross-platform software development with a
> common core of code.
While the source code probably has in excess of 90% commonality for even
the kernel, the differing CPU types require completely different code
for the hardware interface (i/o, memory mappings, etc.).
>> It's hard to believe there is anyone here who isn't aware of how this
>> stuff works. The concept of reusable code isn't exactly hard to grasp.
>
> Not everyone reading these groups is a programmer, but I'm baffled how
> someone like Alan Browne who claims to be a programmer could keep making
> such a silly argument about Sierra supporting ARM when it is easy to
> find evidence of it being a small addition to a cross-platform file.
> Others then take that misinformation and run with it.
Since the heading of the cited file was "MacOS 10.12" it would be
strange to make any other conclusion.
IAC, the context was rebutting Lewis's idiotic claim that the kernel of
the Touch Bar and the MBP are commmon. They cannot be - see above.
--
She hummed to herself because she was an unrivaled botcher of lyrics.
-Nick (Gone Girl), Gillian Flynn.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-08 12:49 +1300 |
| Message-ID | <1mwe9b7.10yst6b1p8hgipN%dempson@actrix.gen.nz> |
| In reply to | #96636 |
Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
> On 2016-11-06 23:12, David Empson wrote:
> > Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 2016-11-06, David Empson <dempson@actrix.gen.nz> wrote:
> >>> JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah...
> >>>
> >>> To clarify for those unable to read the fiery letters, that's the
> >>> software development kits for tvOS, iOS ("iPhoneOS") and watchOS, the
> >>> simulators for each of those platforms, plus the macOS SDK, and the
> >>> macOS Kernel SDK.
> >>>
> >>> All of them have exactly the same content in their machine.h files.
> >>
> >> Is this really big news to anyone at all?
> >
> > It shouldn't be, for anyone capable of reading source files or who
> > understands the concept of cross-platform software development with a
> > common core of code.
>
> While the source code probably has in excess of 90% commonality for even
> the kernel, the differing CPU types require completely different code
> for the hardware interface (i/o, memory mappings, etc.).
>
> >> It's hard to believe there is anyone here who isn't aware of how this
> >> stuff works. The concept of reusable code isn't exactly hard to grasp.
> >
> > Not everyone reading these groups is a programmer, but I'm baffled how
> > someone like Alan Browne who claims to be a programmer could keep making
> > such a silly argument about Sierra supporting ARM when it is easy to
> > find evidence of it being a small addition to a cross-platform file.
> > Others then take that misinformation and run with it.
>
> Since the heading of the cited file was "MacOS 10.12" it would be
> strange to make any other conclusion.
(Sigh. Looks like I need to repeat myself.)
The only way you can make that conclusion is if you don't actually
bother to look at the file in question and instead make assumptions
based on a summary which listed six deleted lines and one added line in
the file.
(Unfortunately there was way too much online reporting of this, all
based on someone jumping to the same wrong conclusion and the rest of
the blogosphere and "news" sites repeating the misinformation without
bothering to check.)
Apple published a delta change listing of all files in the macOS 10.12
SDK, which happened to include the addition of one ARM CPU type in
machine.h.
The change to machine.h was documented in the context of the macOS
kernel, but an identical file is common to every SDK, including kernel
development on macOS, application development on macOS, iOS, watchOS and
tvOS, and the simulators for the last three. Given the timing, the new
ARM CPU family is probably the A10 for the iPhone 7.
machine.h is used by applications (or kernel drivers) to allow run-time
detection of machine-specific details.
As I noted in a previous post, earlier versions of that file already
defined multiple ARM CPU families (so the macOS 10.12 SDK is in no way
"special"), and it has done since the introduction of the iPhone SDK
around 2007/2008.
Some of those definitions are not applicable to some OS/hardware
platforms, but they are defined anyway so the code can detect the
platform is NOT a particular type.
That one line implies nothing about Macs running on ARM processors.
> IAC, the context was rebutting Lewis's idiotic claim that the kernel of
> the Touch Bar and the MBP are commmon. They cannot be - see above.
Core parts of the kernel are common to all of Apple's platforms. They
are built for different processors and have different drivers, but they
share a lot of source code and have the same APIs with the same header
files.
--
David Empson
dempson@actrix.gen.nz
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.mac.system
csiph-web