Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #896569
| From | Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | sci.logic, sci.physics, comp.lang.prolog |
| Subject | But how can you deploy, when its ROM? (Re: Johnny Depp prevention [Windows 11 etc...]) |
| Date | 2026-08-03 18:21 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <114qf60$t244$4@solani.org> (permalink) |
| References | (7 earlier) <11478b2$fv28$2@solani.org> <11478e3$fv28$3@solani.org> <1147921$fvic$2@solani.org> <114om24$s9h3$2@solani.org> <114qeun$t244$2@solani.org> |
Cross-posted to 3 groups.
Hi, Well there are two viewpoint, the "client" of the GPU, which is the CPU, and the "server" of the GPU, which is the command processor queue of the GPU device. So basically as a CPU client I can write the memory area, that is later mapped to my GPU code storage. And this way have a compiler, even written in Prolog, that compiles pi-WAM to my Hack VM, that can then be then deployed to GPU. You could also try the same with a Tiny LISP VM. And a grown up LISP to act as the compiler. Would be a similar exercise. Have Fun! Bye Mild Shock schrieb: > Hi, > > > I've also added comp.theory so Mild Shock can comment. > > > that has different > > * sizeof ( void * ), and > > * sizeof ( void (*)( void ) ), > > Could indicate a data RAM and code ROM model. > Which has then the advantage of: > > Modern operating systems like Windows 11 > enforce strict Data Execution Prevention (DEP) > (or NX/XD bit security features) to prevent > malicious programs from injecting and executing > code inside data-only memory regions. > https://root-nation.com/en/soft-en/lifehacks/en-dep-windows-all-about/ > > I adopted data RAM and code ROM model for > pi-WAM from Hack, which has the same separation: > > Slide 58, Hack Computer > https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Z_fxYmmRNXTkAzmZ6YMoX9NXZIRVCKiw/view > > But my motivation was not Johnny Depp prevention. > Rather the caching of GPUs. Because WGSL > allows storage annotations read_write and > > read. I use read_write for the data RAM > of my Hack VM variant, and read for the > code ROM of my Hack VM variant. You can > > see that here, its open source: > > @group(0) @binding(0) var<storage, read> code: array<i32>; > @group(0) @binding(1) var<storage, read_write> state: array<i32>; > > 11.4 Giga Lips with a Budget Laptop > https://github.com/Jean-Luc-Picard-2021/gigabudget > > Hope this Helps! > > Bye > > Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson schrieb: > > On 03/08/2026 6:28 PM, David Brown wrote: > >> On 03/08/2026 11:41, Richard Harnden wrote: > >>> On 03/08/2026 09:16, David Brown wrote: > >> > >>>> On most targets, function pointers are the same size as void* > pointers. But there are exceptions, with some small microcontrollers and > DSPs having different kinds of pointers with different sizes, depending > on the memory space involved. I have yet to see a situation where there > was any reason for storing a function address in a "void*" rather than a > more appropriate typedef, such as : > >>>> > >>>> typedef void (*FVoid)(void); > >>> > >>> dlsym requires that pointer-to-function is compatible with a void* > >>> > >> > >> As I say, I have yet to see a situation where using void* for > function pointers was more appropriate than using a function pointer > type. If the OS system calls or standard OS libraries makes it a > requirement that function pointers are converted to or from void* for > some calls, then of course you need to follow those requirements - it's > the people who designed the interfaces that made questionable design > choices. > >> > > > > Nope, you're wrong. You're dead wrong. The world isn't built on C, > > even though here in comp.lang.c we like to pretend it is. > > > > Several language environments allow function generation on the fly, > > these functions need to be garbage collected. Common Lisp is an > > example, therefore comp.lang.lisp is added to this discussion. > > > > I've also added comp.theory so Mild Shock can comment. > > > > You will have to go out of your way to make a computer architecture > > incompatible with garbage collected and heap allocated binary code, > > something I've been told SBCL does internally [1] to create an archi- > > tecture that has different > > > > * sizeof ( void * ), and > > * sizeof ( void (*)( void ) ), > > > > and when you do that, I'll just claim you're making a /malicious > > computer architecture/ and refuse to use it. > > > > > > [1] I've not looked at the code, but told the garbage collector can > > and will at least move the code around, if not collect it.
Back to sci.physics | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Homework: Game Engine in WebGPU (Re: Train yourself to become a nosomatic AI chirurgeon) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2026-08-03 02:06 +0200
Johnny Depp prevention [Windows 11 etc...] (Re: Homework: Game Engine in WebGPU) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2026-08-03 18:17 +0200
But how can you deploy, when its ROM? (Re: Johnny Depp prevention [Windows 11 etc...]) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2026-08-03 18:21 +0200
New addition to π-WAM is π-WAM Assembly (Re: Johnny Depp prevention [Windows 11 etc...]) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2026-08-09 19:46 +0200
csiph-web