Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.forth > #34459 > unrolled thread
| Started by | JUERGEN <epldfpga@aol.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2014-11-17 02:26 -0800 |
| Last post | 2014-11-21 15:42 -0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 159 — 23 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.forth
http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? JUERGEN <epldfpga@aol.com> - 2014-11-17 02:26 -0800
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? Paul E Bennett <Paul_E.Bennett@topmail.co.uk> - 2014-11-17 14:24 +0000
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-11-17 14:04 -0500
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2014-11-17 18:37 -0800
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-11-17 19:58 -0800
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-11-18 04:56 -0600
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-11-18 19:10 +0100
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-11-18 14:06 -0600
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? the_gavino_himself <visphatesjava@gmail.com> - 2014-11-23 19:43 -0800
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? "Rod Pemberton" <buzzoff@nonamewhichexists.cmm> - 2014-11-18 16:16 -0500
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2014-11-18 15:49 -0800
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? the_gavino_himself <visphatesjava@gmail.com> - 2014-11-23 19:45 -0800
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-11-23 23:45 -0500
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? "Rod Pemberton" <buzzoff@nonamewhichexists.cmm> - 2014-11-24 17:18 -0500
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-11-23 14:04 +0000
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-11-23 11:25 -0600
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-11-24 09:36 +0000
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-11-24 06:02 -0600
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-11-24 13:04 +0000
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-11-24 14:50 +0100
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-11-24 14:06 +0000
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2014-11-24 16:38 +0000
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-11-24 09:04 -0600
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-11-24 16:16 +0000
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-11-24 12:57 -0600
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-11-25 16:18 +0000
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-11-25 14:40 -0500
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-11-26 00:48 +0100
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-11-25 19:10 -0500
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-11-26 02:09 +0100
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-11-26 11:22 +0000
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-11-26 16:11 -0500
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-11-25 16:57 -0800
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-11-26 03:51 -0600
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-11-27 16:10 +0000
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-11-27 10:39 -0600
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-11-28 15:27 +0000
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-11-28 10:26 -0600
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-11-29 01:03 +0100
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-11-29 15:27 +0000
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-11-29 19:04 +0100
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-11-30 15:48 +0000
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-11-30 17:36 +0100
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-12-03 14:25 +0000
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2014-12-04 20:04 -0800
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-12-04 08:37 -0600
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-12-04 21:39 +0100
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-12-05 03:31 -0600
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-12-05 18:33 +0100
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-12-05 14:56 -0600
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-11-29 13:07 +0000
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-11-29 16:00 +0000
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-11-29 11:21 -0600
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-11-30 15:26 +0000
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-11-30 12:49 -0600
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-11-24 18:34 +0100
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-11-25 16:04 +0000
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-11-25 14:48 -0500
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-11-26 00:49 +0000
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-11-25 21:07 -0500
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-11-26 11:45 +0000
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? Paul E Bennett <Paul_E.Bennett@topmail.co.uk> - 2014-11-26 12:44 +0000
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-11-26 14:11 +0000
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-11-26 16:17 -0500
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-11-26 23:27 +0100
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-11-27 12:28 +0000
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-11-27 09:20 -0600
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-11-27 15:59 +0000
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-11-27 10:42 -0600
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-11-28 15:44 +0000
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-11-28 10:35 -0600
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-11-29 15:38 +0000
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-11-29 19:10 +0100
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-11-30 16:09 +0000
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-11-30 17:40 +0100
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-12-03 16:47 +0000
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-12-04 21:22 +0100
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-12-05 12:37 +0000
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-12-05 19:02 +0100
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-12-06 12:09 +0000
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? JUERGEN <epldfpga@aol.com> - 2014-12-06 06:45 -0800
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-12-06 19:58 +0100
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-12-07 13:39 +0000
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-12-07 08:04 -0800
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-12-07 22:52 +0100
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-12-10 12:46 +0000
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-12-11 02:08 +0100
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-12-11 10:20 +0000
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-12-11 05:06 -0600
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? Jan Coombs <Jan-54 <jenfhaomndgfwutc@murmic.plus.com>> - 2014-12-11 17:56 +0000
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2014-12-15 15:57 +0000
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-12-16 07:53 +0000
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? JUERGEN <epldfpga@aol.com> - 2014-12-17 08:49 -0800
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-12-11 23:46 +0100
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-12-11 16:24 -0800
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2014-12-11 17:46 -0800
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-12-11 22:20 -0800
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-12-13 00:24 +0100
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-12-12 18:39 -0800
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-12-13 21:06 +0100
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-12-13 22:58 -0800
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2014-12-04 03:38 -0800
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? Horse Shit <puke.aguilar@hughfailure.com> - 2014-12-04 13:29 +0000
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? JUERGEN <epldfpga@aol.com> - 2014-11-28 05:36 -0800
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-11-28 10:37 -0600
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-11-26 01:14 +0100
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-11-23 20:57 -0800
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-11-24 03:59 -0600
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-11-24 02:14 -0800
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-11-24 06:09 -0600
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-11-24 11:04 -0800
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-11-24 11:49 -1000
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-11-24 13:57 -0800
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-11-24 12:28 -1000
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-11-24 14:50 -0800
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-11-24 13:22 -1000
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-11-24 16:15 -0800
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-11-24 14:38 -1000
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-11-25 01:52 +0100
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-11-25 11:43 +0000
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-11-25 03:35 -0600
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-11-25 09:37 -0800
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-11-26 03:57 -0600
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-11-25 11:16 +0000
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-11-25 02:06 -0500
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-11-24 21:40 -1000
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-11-24 23:57 -0800
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-11-25 03:37 -0500
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-11-25 03:43 -0600
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-11-25 15:26 +0000
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-11-25 15:47 +0000
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-11-25 03:30 -0600
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-11-25 09:32 -0800
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-11-25 11:11 +0000
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-11-24 12:24 +0000
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-11-25 09:45 -0800
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-11-24 10:17 +0000
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-11-17 23:20 -0500
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? Raimond Dragomir <raimond.dragomir@gmail.com> - 2014-11-17 23:31 -0800
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-11-18 02:44 -0500
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? Raimond Dragomir <raimond.dragomir@gmail.com> - 2014-11-18 00:18 -0800
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-11-18 13:51 +0000
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-11-18 12:06 -0500
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? Elizabeth D Rather <erather@forth.com> - 2014-11-18 09:23 -1000
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-11-18 08:09 -0800
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-11-18 18:01 -0500
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? Elizabeth D Rather <erather@forth.com> - 2014-11-17 21:58 -1000
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-11-18 14:04 +0000
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-11-18 18:53 +0100
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-11-18 14:15 -0600
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-11-23 13:40 +0000
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-11-18 17:48 -0800
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-11-23 14:24 +0000
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-11-23 16:53 +0000
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? stephen@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2014-11-23 17:26 +0000
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2014-11-18 03:34 -0800
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? m.a.m.hendrix@tue.nl - 2014-11-18 04:19 -0800
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-11-23 13:50 +0000
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2014-11-21 15:42 -0800
Page 4 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 Next page →
| From | anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-11-26 11:45 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <2014Nov26.124527@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> |
| In reply to | #34642 |
rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> writes:
>On 11/25/2014 11:04 AM, Anton Ertl wrote:
>> In any case, ARM are below industry standard in their access to
>> documentation, and we should reward them for this by not supporting
>> their architecture. OTOH, the RISC-V stuff is much more along the
>> lines of the open source hardware that you propagated a few months
>> ago. I hope they win out over ARM, but that will take at least a
>> decade.
>
>I doubt very seriously if lowRISC has a chance of dethroning ARM. If
>nothing else the sheer money involved makes ARM able to produce new,
>improved designs much faster than lowRISC is likely to ever be able to do.
That's one more reason to compete on the low end. You just have to do
a good minimal implementation once, while on the high end not only you
need to invest much more manpower, you need to do it again and again,
whenever more transistors become available.
>BTW, how is lowRISC funded again? If it is open source there won't be a
>revenue stream, will there?
Right, that's why Android has no funding, and iOS and Windows mobile
have higher market share than Android. Right?
- anton
--
M. Anton Ertl http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/home.html
comp.lang.forth FAQs: http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/forth/faq/toc.html
New standard: http://www.forth200x.org/forth200x.html
EuroForth 2014: http://www.euroforth.org/ef14/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul E Bennett <Paul_E.Bennett@topmail.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-11-26 12:44 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <cdm09mFrql3U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #34654 |
Anton Ertl wrote: > rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> writes: >>On 11/25/2014 11:04 AM, Anton Ertl wrote: >>> In any case, ARM are below industry standard in their access to >>> documentation, and we should reward them for this by not supporting >>> their architecture. OTOH, the RISC-V stuff is much more along the >>> lines of the open source hardware that you propagated a few months >>> ago. I hope they win out over ARM, but that will take at least a >>> decade. >> >>I doubt very seriously if lowRISC has a chance of dethroning ARM. If >>nothing else the sheer money involved makes ARM able to produce new, >>improved designs much faster than lowRISC is likely to ever be able to do. > > That's one more reason to compete on the low end. You just have to do > a good minimal implementation once, while on the high end not only you > need to invest much more manpower, you need to do it again and again, > whenever more transistors become available. > >>BTW, how is lowRISC funded again? If it is open source there won't be a >>revenue stream, will there? > > Right, that's why Android has no funding, and iOS and Windows mobile > have higher market share than Android. Right? > > - anton Just looked up what that share is currently at:- <http://www.idc.com/prodserv/smartphone-os-market-share.jsp> Of course, Android has the might of Google backing it. -- ******************************************************************** Paul E. Bennett IEng MIET.....<email://Paul_E.Bennett@topmail.co.uk> Forth based HIDECS Consultancy.............<http://www.hidecs.co.uk> Mob: +44 (0)7811-639972 Tel: +44 (0)1235-510979 Going Forth Safely ..... EBA. www.electric-boat-association.org.uk.. ********************************************************************
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-11-26 14:11 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <2014Nov26.151151@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> |
| In reply to | #34655 |
Paul E Bennett <Paul_E.Bennett@topmail.co.uk> writes:
>Anton Ertl wrote:
>
>> rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> writes:
>>>BTW, how is lowRISC funded again? If it is open source there won't be a
>>>revenue stream, will there?
>>
>> Right, that's why Android has no funding, and iOS and Windows mobile
>> have higher market share than Android. Right?
>>
>> - anton
>
>Just looked up what that share is currently at:-
>
><http://www.idc.com/prodserv/smartphone-os-market-share.jsp>
>
>Of course, Android has the might of Google backing it.
Apparently Google found a revenue stream from open source software.
Might happen with open source hardware, too.
- anton
--
M. Anton Ertl http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/home.html
comp.lang.forth FAQs: http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/forth/faq/toc.html
New standard: http://www.forth200x.org/forth200x.html
EuroForth 2014: http://www.euroforth.org/ef14/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-11-26 16:17 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <m55g2k$tce$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #34656 |
On 11/26/2014 9:11 AM, Anton Ertl wrote: > Paul E Bennett <Paul_E.Bennett@topmail.co.uk> writes: >> Anton Ertl wrote: >> >>> rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> writes: >>>> BTW, how is lowRISC funded again? If it is open source there won't be a >>>> revenue stream, will there? >>> >>> Right, that's why Android has no funding, and iOS and Windows mobile >>> have higher market share than Android. Right? >>> >>> - anton >> >> Just looked up what that share is currently at:- >> >> <http://www.idc.com/prodserv/smartphone-os-market-share.jsp> >> >> Of course, Android has the might of Google backing it. > > Apparently Google found a revenue stream from open source software. > Might happen with open source hardware, too. I think it is easier to have a revenue stream with open source hardware than open source software. Google got huge market share by having a fully developed OS ready to go into phones, etc. with minimal investment from the community. Will the same be true of lowRISC? I think it is possible that this will happen, but I don't have the impression the organization behind the lowRISC is planning to be the market force that Google is. I get the impression they intend to let the butterfly flap its own wings once it emerges from the chrysalis. -- Rick
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-11-26 23:27 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <m55k3d$dr5$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #34656 |
Anton Ertl wrote: > Apparently Google found a revenue stream from open source software. > Might happen with open source hardware, too. Google wants everybody to use Android, because that way, they can get their ad-based revenue. That means you have to figure out how to make revenue from everybody using your core. I don't have an idea how to do that, but there are certainly other ways to generate revenue. One is trust: I'm participant in an open hardware security module; I've only contributed an entropy source so far, but the work is university funded, and the main contributors work on that university. The idea is to have an auditable hardware security module, not a black box. -- Bernd Paysan "If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself" http://bernd-paysan.de/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-11-27 12:28 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <2014Nov27.132839@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> |
| In reply to | #34660 |
Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> writes:
>Anton Ertl wrote:
>> Apparently Google found a revenue stream from open source software.
>> Might happen with open source hardware, too.
>
>Google wants everybody to use Android, because that way, they can get their
>ad-based revenue. That means you have to figure out how to make revenue
>from everybody using your core. I don't have an idea how to do that, but
>there are certainly other ways to generate revenue.
I think the same could work for RISC-V. Google could find it
worthwhile to support it on the software side in order to enable
cheaper (i.e., more widespread) Android devices. And the hardware
manufacturer could then design a RISC-V-based phone, because by not
having to pay the ARM tax they can make cheaper phones and make more
profits at first or have a bigger market later.
There are probably other ways to generate revenue. Just because we
don't see them does not mean they don't exist. Even when Google
introduced Android I had no idea how they wanted to make money from
it, so I am probably not the best person to ask about this.
- anton
--
M. Anton Ertl http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/home.html
comp.lang.forth FAQs: http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/forth/faq/toc.html
New standard: http://www.forth200x.org/forth200x.html
EuroForth 2014: http://www.euroforth.org/ef14/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-11-27 09:20 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <q86dnSzMp8Sn3OrJnZ2dnUVZ8jidnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #34666 |
Anton Ertl <anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> wrote: > >> >>Google wants everybody to use Android, because that way, they can get their >>ad-based revenue. That means you have to figure out how to make revenue >>from everybody using your core. I don't have an idea how to do that, but >>there are certainly other ways to generate revenue. > > I think the same could work for RISC-V. Google could find it > worthwhile to support it on the software side in order to enable > cheaper (i.e., more widespread) Android devices. And the hardware > manufacturer could then design a RISC-V-based phone, because by not > having to pay the ARM tax they can make cheaper phones and make more > profits at first or have a bigger market later. I doubt it. ARM cores shipped in 2013: 10 billion. ARM revenue in 2013: UKP 730 million. The ARM tax is not very high. Andrew.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-11-27 15:59 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <2014Nov27.165910@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> |
| In reply to | #34667 |
Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> writes:
>Anton Ertl <anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>Google wants everybody to use Android, because that way, they can get their
>>>ad-based revenue. That means you have to figure out how to make revenue
>>>from everybody using your core. I don't have an idea how to do that, but
>>>there are certainly other ways to generate revenue.
>>
>> I think the same could work for RISC-V. Google could find it
>> worthwhile to support it on the software side in order to enable
>> cheaper (i.e., more widespread) Android devices. And the hardware
>> manufacturer could then design a RISC-V-based phone, because by not
>> having to pay the ARM tax they can make cheaper phones and make more
>> profits at first or have a bigger market later.
>
>I doubt it. ARM cores shipped in 2013: 10 billion. ARM revenue in
>2013: UKP 730 million. The ARM tax is not very high.
From what I hear, companies are very keen on shaving off a penny here
and there. And the ARM tax is not just that; I guess the disdain for
developers does not end at the unavailability of public documentation.
- anton
--
M. Anton Ertl http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/home.html
comp.lang.forth FAQs: http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/forth/faq/toc.html
New standard: http://www.forth200x.org/forth200x.html
EuroForth 2014: http://www.euroforth.org/ef14/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-11-27 10:42 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <r9-dnYNHwPMMyerJnZ2dnUU7-SudnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #34669 |
Anton Ertl <anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> wrote: > Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> writes: >>Anton Ertl <anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>>Google wants everybody to use Android, because that way, they can get their >>>>ad-based revenue. That means you have to figure out how to make revenue >>>>from everybody using your core. I don't have an idea how to do that, but >>>>there are certainly other ways to generate revenue. >>> >>> I think the same could work for RISC-V. Google could find it >>> worthwhile to support it on the software side in order to enable >>> cheaper (i.e., more widespread) Android devices. And the hardware >>> manufacturer could then design a RISC-V-based phone, because by not >>> having to pay the ARM tax they can make cheaper phones and make more >>> profits at first or have a bigger market later. >> >>I doubt it. ARM cores shipped in 2013: 10 billion. ARM revenue in >>2013: UKP 730 million. The ARM tax is not very high. > > From what I hear, companies are very keen on shaving off a penny > here and there. For sure, but I suspect that ARM users' benefit from using ARM cores is worth more than the very few pennies it costs per core. You'd have to use a phenomenal number of cores to justify the extra the software and hardware development costs from something more DIY. > And the ARM tax is not just that; I guess the disdain for developers > does not end at the unavailability of public documentation. Disdain for developers? Andrew.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-11-28 15:44 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <2014Nov28.164435@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> |
| In reply to | #34672 |
Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> writes:
>Anton Ertl <anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> wrote:
>> From what I hear, companies are very keen on shaving off a penny
>> here and there.
>
>For sure, but I suspect that ARM users' benefit from using ARM cores
>is worth more than the very few pennies it costs per core. You'd have
>to use a phenomenal number of cores to justify the extra the software
>and hardware development costs from something more DIY.
The end users couldn't care less if it is an ARM or a RISC-V.
Concerning the developers, some of them are very much into DIY; e.g.,
Apple designed the core of their iPhone themselves and do the compiler
themselves. If RISC-V had existed a few years earlier, they might
have gone for that instead of ARM.
>> And the ARM tax is not just that; I guess the disdain for developers
>> does not end at the unavailability of public documentation.
>
>Disdain for developers?
Yes.
- anton
--
M. Anton Ertl http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/home.html
comp.lang.forth FAQs: http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/forth/faq/toc.html
New standard: http://www.forth200x.org/forth200x.html
EuroForth 2014: http://www.euroforth.org/ef14/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-11-28 10:35 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <Y9SdncW62fLVOeXJnZ2dnUVZ8hmdnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #34677 |
Anton Ertl <anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> wrote: > Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> writes: >>Anton Ertl <anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> wrote: >>> From what I hear, companies are very keen on shaving off a penny >>> here and there. >> >>For sure, but I suspect that ARM users' benefit from using ARM cores >>is worth more than the very few pennies it costs per core. You'd have >>to use a phenomenal number of cores to justify the extra the software >>and hardware development costs from something more DIY. > > The end users couldn't care less if it is an ARM or a RISC-V. I did not mention end users. I'm talking about people who buy (or make) ARMs and put them into things. > Concerning the developers, some of them are very much into DIY; > e.g., Apple designed the core of their iPhone themselves and do the > compiler themselves. I thought they used LLVM, and that's certainly not their own compiler. > If RISC-V had existed a few years earlier, they might have gone for > that instead of ARM. Maybe, if there was a sufficiently established ecosystsem and if they thought they could get the same performance. I doubt it, though: if it were that easy ARM wouldn't be in the position they are now. >>> And the ARM tax is not just that; I guess the disdain for developers >>> does not end at the unavailability of public documentation. >> >>Disdain for developers? > > Yes. What disdain is that? Anybody who wants the dcumentation can easily get it. Andrew.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-11-29 15:38 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <2014Nov29.163800@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> |
| In reply to | #34679 |
Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> writes:
>Anton Ertl <anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> wrote:
>> Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> writes:
>>>Anton Ertl <anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> wrote:
>>>For sure, but I suspect that ARM users' benefit from using ARM cores
>>>is worth more than the very few pennies it costs per core. You'd have
>>>to use a phenomenal number of cores to justify the extra the software
>>>and hardware development costs from something more DIY.
>>
>> The end users couldn't care less if it is an ARM or a RISC-V.
>
>I did not mention end users. I'm talking about people who buy (or
>make) ARMs and put them into things.
>
>> Concerning the developers, some of them are very much into DIY;
>> e.g., Apple designed the core of their iPhone themselves and do the
>> compiler themselves.
>
>I thought they used LLVM, and that's certainly not their own compiler.
Apple have paid the lead developer of LLVM (and probably additional
staff) since 2005, there is a free (both beer and speech) alternative
available that they no longer use; they are deep in DIY territory.
>>>> And the ARM tax is not just that; I guess the disdain for developers
>>>> does not end at the unavailability of public documentation.
>>>
>>>Disdain for developers?
>>
>> Yes.
>
>What disdain is that? Anybody who wants the dcumentation can easily
>get it.
Not as easily as we can get documentation from, e.g., Intel, AMD,
Freescale, sparc.org, or riscv.org, where we can just download it.
ARM wants developers to jump through additional hoops. That
disdain.
- anton
--
M. Anton Ertl http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/home.html
comp.lang.forth FAQs: http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/forth/faq/toc.html
New standard: http://www.forth200x.org/forth200x.html
EuroForth 2014: http://www.euroforth.org/ef14/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-11-29 19:10 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <m5d265$sbc$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #34686 |
Anton Ertl wrote: > Not as easily as we can get documentation from, e.g., Intel, AMD, > Freescale, sparc.org, or riscv.org, where we can just download it. > ARM wants developers to jump through additional hoops. That > disdain. All the arguments you are making about how awful ARM is, is way more work than just filling in that e-mail address, a name and a company name, and clicking on the link this one e-mail gives you - and then you are registered (ok, maybe you also need to make up a password; but as this password does not protect your data, but ARMs data, you can choose a simple one). You don't have to sign an NDA. It takes one minute to get through and download the document. The amount of paperwork to become a GNU project maintainer with access to the gnu.org resources is way way higher, and I think that is a disdain the FSF should work on - it's much easier to set up your infrastructure on github instead. It took me several weeks until I could release Gforth 0.7.3. If you compare this effort with the effort it takes to download ARM's Aarch64 manual, the disdain is so close to 0 that you don't even notice it. -- Bernd Paysan "If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself" http://bernd-paysan.de/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-11-30 16:09 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <2014Nov30.170954@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> |
| In reply to | #34693 |
Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> writes:
>Anton Ertl wrote:
>> Not as easily as we can get documentation from, e.g., Intel, AMD,
>> Freescale, sparc.org, or riscv.org, where we can just download it.
>> ARM wants developers to jump through additional hoops. That
>> disdain.
>
>All the arguments you are making about how awful ARM is, is way more work
>than just filling in that e-mail address, a name and a company name, and
>clicking on the link this one e-mail gives you - and then you are registered
>(ok, maybe you also need to make up a password; but as this password does
>not protect your data, but ARMs data, you can choose a simple one). You
>don't have to sign an NDA. It takes one minute to get through and download
>the document.
Sure, I may have spent more time explaining that point than it would
take to jump through the first hoop that ARM wants me to jump through,
but these are different things. I could just as well have decided
silently that I don't want to have anything to do with ARMv8, and it
would have cost less time than jumping through the hoop.
>The amount of paperwork to become a GNU project maintainer with access to
>the gnu.org resources is way way higher, and I think that is a disdain the
>FSF should work on - it's much easier to set up your infrastructure on
>github instead. It took me several weeks until I could release Gforth
>0.7.3. If you compare this effort with the effort it takes to download
>ARM's Aarch64 manual, the disdain is so close to 0 that you don't even
>notice it.
Sorry, you are comparing apples to orchards. You can download Gforth
from gnu.org directly, without registering. And even after you have
registered with ARM, you cannot upload new versions of the ARMv8
architecture manual; it probably takes much more paperwork than for
GNU until you are able to do that, if ever.
You also don't need lots of paperwork to become developer at
savannah.gnu.org (I don't remember any paper being involved), which is
more comparable with github than being able to upload an official
release of a GNU programs.
You may be right that GNU paperwork could be reduced, but your
inappropriate comparisons do not support that.
- anton
--
M. Anton Ertl http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/home.html
comp.lang.forth FAQs: http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/forth/faq/toc.html
New standard: http://www.forth200x.org/forth200x.html
EuroForth 2014: http://www.euroforth.org/ef14/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-11-30 17:40 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <m5fh9o$q1g$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #34716 |
Anton Ertl wrote: > Sorry, you are comparing apples to orchards. You can download Gforth > from gnu.org directly, without registering. And even after you have > registered with ARM, you cannot upload new versions of the ARMv8 > architecture manual; it probably takes much more paperwork than for > GNU until you are able to do that, if ever. > > You also don't need lots of paperwork to become developer at > savannah.gnu.org (I don't remember any paper being involved), which is > more comparable with github than being able to upload an official > release of a GNU programs. > > You may be right that GNU paperwork could be reduced, but your > inappropriate comparisons do not support that. These are just two paperworks I have to do to maintain Gforth - writing an Aarch64 assembler is one thing, getting it uploaded on gnu.org is another. I expect each of these processes to be as slick as possible. ARM isn't, they require me to jump through a hoop that takes one minute. The FSF requies me to jump through a hoop that takes weeks and requires a lot of patience, and about 99% of that is not necessary. And the FSF has a very dedicated mission about freedom and stuff like that, to which this buerocracy is contrary. ARM does not have this sort of mission. -- Bernd Paysan "If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself" http://bernd-paysan.de/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-12-03 16:47 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <2014Dec3.174738@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> |
| In reply to | #34718 |
Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> writes:
>Anton Ertl wrote:
>> Sorry, you are comparing apples to orchards. You can download Gforth
>> from gnu.org directly, without registering. And even after you have
>> registered with ARM, you cannot upload new versions of the ARMv8
>> architecture manual; it probably takes much more paperwork than for
>> GNU until you are able to do that, if ever.
>>
>> You also don't need lots of paperwork to become developer at
>> savannah.gnu.org (I don't remember any paper being involved), which is
>> more comparable with github than being able to upload an official
>> release of a GNU programs.
>>
>> You may be right that GNU paperwork could be reduced, but your
>> inappropriate comparisons do not support that.
>
>These are just two paperworks I have to do to maintain Gforth - writing an
>Aarch64 assembler is one thing, getting it uploaded on gnu.org is another.
>I expect each of these processes to be as slick as possible. ARM isn't,
>they require me to jump through a hoop that takes one minute. The FSF
>requies me to jump through a hoop that takes weeks and requires a lot of
>patience, and about 99% of that is not necessary. And the FSF has a very
>dedicated mission about freedom and stuff like that, to which this
>buerocracy is contrary.
First of all, you don't need to develop an ARM64 assembler to maintain
Gforth.
Second, downloading something, and uploading a piece of software to
the main software distribution site are still not comparable, so your
comparing them does not make sense. Suppose they were comparable;
then everybody should be able to upload new versions of Gforth to
gnu.org. And let me anticipate your next "Andrew Haley"-style excuse
for not presenting an argument: yes, that's a reductio ad absurdum.
>ARM does not have this sort of mission.
ARM's mission is to make profit. One might think that given their
business model, they want developers, but apparently that's not the
case.
- anton
--
M. Anton Ertl http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/home.html
comp.lang.forth FAQs: http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/forth/faq/toc.html
New standard: http://www.forth200x.org/forth200x.html
EuroForth 2014: http://www.euroforth.org/ef14/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-12-04 21:22 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <m5qfqf$ulj$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #34766 |
Anton Ertl wrote: > First of all, you don't need to develop an ARM64 assembler to maintain > Gforth. Well, it would be nice if someone developed an ARM64 assembler for Gforth. And if we go native code, ARM64 certainly is on the list of "should be supported" plattforms. > Second, downloading something, and uploading a piece of software to > the main software distribution site are still not comparable, so your > comparing them does not make sense. Suppose they were comparable; > then everybody should be able to upload new versions of Gforth to > gnu.org. And let me anticipate your next "Andrew Haley"-style excuse > for not presenting an argument: yes, that's a reductio ad absurdum. I for sure want that more people contribute to the GNU project, and that means more maintainers for more small projects. The FSF is in the business to herd cats (free software maintainers), and IMHO, they just screw up in the "make life easy for maintainers" mission, which should be part of their "promote free software" mission. >>ARM does not have this sort of mission. > > ARM's mission is to make profit. One might think that given their > business model, they want developers, but apparently that's not the > case. I'm quite sure that very few serious developers are scared off by a site which wants their e-mail address and a name, and nothing more. It's probably because these days, schools and universities don't even teach assembler anymore, so very few developers actually need that stuff. The rest does C, Python, Java, PHP or worse. -- Bernd Paysan "If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself" http://bernd-paysan.de/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-12-05 12:37 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <2014Dec5.133759@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> |
| In reply to | #34779 |
Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> writes:
>Anton Ertl wrote:
>> First of all, you don't need to develop an ARM64 assembler to maintain
>> Gforth.
>
>Well, it would be nice if someone developed an ARM64 assembler for Gforth.
>And if we go native code, ARM64 certainly is on the list of "should be
>supported" plattforms.
Not for me. I won't support it.
>I for sure want that more people contribute to the GNU project, and that
>means more maintainers for more small projects. The FSF is in the business
>to herd cats (free software maintainers), and IMHO, they just screw up in
>the "make life easy for maintainers" mission, which should be part of their
>"promote free software" mission.
That may be the case, but my point was that comparing that with read
access to a manual does not support your claim.
>>>ARM does not have this sort of mission.
>>
>> ARM's mission is to make profit. One might think that given their
>> business model, they want developers, but apparently that's not the
>> case.
>
>I'm quite sure that very few serious developers are scared off by a site
>which wants their e-mail address and a name, and nothing more.
Sure, if somebody is motivated to use ARM64 by other constraints like
you seem to be, they will jump through the hoop.
But for earlier stuff, like teaching and studying, people may not be
motivated. Better teach AMD64, RISC-V or PowerPC, that way you don't
force your students to jump through the hoop. And once the students
are familiar with, say, PowerPC, they are more likely to use it for
their own project; and that project may not be serious at first, and
only turn into something bigger later.
When I look at specific architectural features (like the addressing
modes of different archutectures), I won't jump through the hoop,
either, so ARM64 won't show up in any architectural comparisons I
make.
> It's
>probably because these days, schools and universities don't even teach
>assembler anymore, so very few developers actually need that stuff.
I teach assembly language. But I certainly won't be teaching ARM64
assembly language, and therefore we won't be buying ARM64 servers for
this stuff.
- anton
--
M. Anton Ertl http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/home.html
comp.lang.forth FAQs: http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/forth/faq/toc.html
New standard: http://www.forth200x.org/forth200x.html
EuroForth 2014: http://www.euroforth.org/ef14/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-12-05 19:02 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <m5srvk$jj5$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #34793 |
Anton Ertl wrote: > Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> writes: >>Anton Ertl wrote: >>> First of all, you don't need to develop an ARM64 assembler to maintain >>> Gforth. >> >>Well, it would be nice if someone developed an ARM64 assembler for Gforth. >>And if we go native code, ARM64 certainly is on the list of "should be >>supported" plattforms. > > Not for me. I won't support it. Because you have to give them your e-mail to download the documentation? We have sort-of Itanium support in Gforth (well, at least flush-cache)! They wanted your firstborn son to download the documentation! How did you get that information? I wouldn't have touched Itanic with a 10-foot-pole, after they had built that completely ridiculous NDA and secrecy around it. >>I for sure want that more people contribute to the GNU project, and that >>means more maintainers for more small projects. The FSF is in the >>business to herd cats (free software maintainers), and IMHO, they just >>screw up in the "make life easy for maintainers" mission, which should be >>part of their "promote free software" mission. > > That may be the case, but my point was that comparing that with read > access to a manual does not support your claim. We have two organisations with a mission, and they both fail to "best industry practise" which would support their mission. Of course, the FSF would be better off if their community plattform was as easy to use as github. And of course, ARM would be better off if their document download area would be as easy to use as AMD's. If you don't support ARM64, because they want you to give them an e-mail (can be a one-time anonymized one), then I should never ever again support FSF, because they want to give me answers to 30 questions, my public PGP key, and repeated nagging for weeks until they finally manage to add that key to their server, and if you make a mistake in this procedure, there is no error reporting... Honestly: If you think the ARM hoops are a problem, we should instantly cease to support FSF. Their administration is just too awful! We should go on github, and forget about the FSF. We had a github repository there even without doing anything - during our CVS development, someone just created a git with automatic CVS import there... > Sure, if somebody is motivated to use ARM64 by other constraints like > you seem to be, they will jump through the hoop. It's not even a hoop, and it's certainly not burning. You don't have to jump. It's just an e-mail address, it's done after a minute. It's not perfect, but it's not a hoop you have to jump through. > But for earlier stuff, like teaching and studying, people may not be > motivated. Better teach AMD64, RISC-V or PowerPC, that way you don't > force your students to jump through the hoop. And once the students > are familiar with, say, PowerPC, they are more likely to use it for > their own project; and that project may not be serious at first, and > only turn into something bigger later. Yes, the same thing is true if you compare savannah.org and github.com: All the hoops you have to jump through to get a GNU project up and running compared to how easy it is to get a project on github: All the students will for sure publish their project on github and the FSF is toast. And yes, that's really happening. This is, because many free software projects are student jobs, and the student gets to decide. For a project like using a SoC chip, it's not the student who decides. It's someone in higher management, and the hoops of the underlings don't count. It's things like "is there an Android for PowerPC?" Oh, no, there isn't. We are done with the discussion. Next question would be power budget and price point, and yes, we are again done with the discussion. Last point? You need an e-mail to register. However, I didn't even find the POWER8 architecture reference manual PDF on Google or on power.org. All I find are presentations. I don't really see how IBM is better: Maybe I can download their document for free, but when I can't find it, it doesn't help me. > When I look at specific architectural features (like the addressing > modes of different archutectures), I won't jump through the hoop, > either, so ARM64 won't show up in any architectural comparisons I > make. You still make an elephant out of a fly. >> It's >>probably because these days, schools and universities don't even teach >>assembler anymore, so very few developers actually need that stuff. > > I teach assembly language. But I certainly won't be teaching ARM64 > assembly language, and therefore we won't be buying ARM64 servers for > this stuff. Your students will buy ARM64 phones and tablets. They won't ask you; within the next few years, these will be the only phones left (no more ARM32 phones, some high-end Android phones already have ARM64 cores, and only wait for Android Lollipop, and the iPhones are already more ARM64 than ARM32). And they will ask you how to do your examples with Gforth's inline assembler on their phones and tablets. You don't have to buy anything. -- Bernd Paysan "If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself" http://bernd-paysan.de/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-12-06 12:09 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <2014Dec6.130936@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> |
| In reply to | #34796 |
Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> writes:
>Anton Ertl wrote:
>
>> Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> writes:
>>>Anton Ertl wrote:
>>>> First of all, you don't need to develop an ARM64 assembler to maintain
>>>> Gforth.
>>>
>>>Well, it would be nice if someone developed an ARM64 assembler for Gforth.
>>>And if we go native code, ARM64 certainly is on the list of "should be
>>>supported" plattforms.
>>
>> Not for me. I won't support it.
>
>Because you have to give them your e-mail to download the documentation?
>
>We have sort-of Itanium support in Gforth (well, at least flush-cache)!
>They wanted your firstborn son to download the documentation! How did you
>get that information?
I just downloaded the documentation. They did not want my firstborn,
nor did they want me to register, or other nonsense.
>I wouldn't have touched Itanic with a 10-foot-pole,
>after they had built that completely ridiculous NDA and secrecy around it.
It seems that they realized the error in their ways. You can download
it without further ado:
http://www.intel.com/content/dam/doc/manual/itanium-architecture-vol-1-2-3-4-reference-set-manual.pdf
>Yes, the same thing is true if you compare savannah.org and github.com: All
>the hoops you have to jump through to get a GNU project up and running
>compared to how easy it is to get a project on github: All the students will
>for sure publish their project on github and the FSF is toast.
They sure do publish their projects on github.
>For a project like using a SoC chip, it's not the student who decides. It's
>someone in higher management, and the hoops of the underlings don't count.
>It's things like "is there an Android for PowerPC?" Oh, no, there isn't.
Hmm, googling for "Android PowerPC" shows that there is something.
And since Android is free software, you are able to supply the missing
pieces if needed.
>We are done with the discussion. Next question would be power budget and
>price point, and yes, we are again done with the discussion. Last point?
>You need an e-mail to register.
One question is, where they get the people to work on the project.
And if there are few people available with ARM64 knowledge, that's one
factor against ARM64. Or with your "discussion over" style
management, ARM64 is out.
>However, I didn't even find the POWER8 architecture reference manual PDF on
>Google or on power.org. All I find are presentations. I don't really see
>how IBM is better: Maybe I can download their document for free, but when I
>can't find it, it doesn't help me.
IBM apparently is not better, but Freescale is. I found the PowerPC
architecture manual by googling for it, and it's available for
download from Freescale.
>> I teach assembly language. But I certainly won't be teaching ARM64
>> assembly language, and therefore we won't be buying ARM64 servers for
>> this stuff.
>
>Your students will buy ARM64 phones and tablets. They won't ask you; within
>the next few years, these will be the only phones left (no more ARM32
>phones, some high-end Android phones already have ARM64 cores, and only wait
>for Android Lollipop, and the iPhones are already more ARM64 than ARM32).
>And they will ask you how to do your examples with Gforth's inline assembler
>on their phones and tablets.
>
>You don't have to buy anything.
For the compilers course where I teach assembly language, the tasks
they have to do are to write a program that has to run on our server;
I run it there to test it. So what their phone contains is
irrelevant, and even if the testing part was not an issue, I would not
give them the task to write an ARM64 program, because I have no
documentation for that architecture, and because they cannot get the
documentation without jumping through hoops.
- anton
--
M. Anton Ertl http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/home.html
comp.lang.forth FAQs: http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/forth/faq/toc.html
New standard: http://www.forth200x.org/forth200x.html
EuroForth 2014: http://www.euroforth.org/ef14/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.forth
csiph-web