Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Lanai, the mystery CPU architecture in LLVM

q3k.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 163 posts

Re: Lanai, the mystery CPU architecture in LLVM

#81

Post by monocasa »

detaro wrote: post #74
monocasa wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that has more to do with DXGKRNL coming from Microsoft than any policy that would be applied to other contributers.

Other Microsoft contributions got into the kernel just fine.

And other thin veneers over closed source paravirtualized VM graphics acceleration pipes get in as well, even from companies that flagrantly violate Linux's license.

I think that it's a difference of subtree maintainer as to why some Microsoft code gets in and some is fought tooth and nail; you can't treat Linux developers as a monolith, and the graphics side is significantly more Microsoft adverse.

Re: Lanai, the mystery CPU architecture in LLVM

#82

Post by edgyquant »

jandrese wrote: post #35
drewg123 wrote: post #4

I worked for Myricom 2001->2013, and Google 2013->2015. And, wow, I wish I could comment on this thread.. :) EDIT: Scott's Medium blog post linked from this article is fascinating: https://medium.com/swlh/myricom-an-hpc-story-and-lessons-lea...

> The CEO capped the full time headcount at 49 people so he wouldn’t be subject to California law requiring him to provide his employees with a health plan. Can you imagine being this stingy and short sighted? The employees are largely PhDs and he is willing to cripple his company to avoid paying benefits.

After the ACA passed, I remember my ex getting 29 hours at the places she worked because 30 hours demanded they be given benefits like health insurance. I really think regulations with a set number like this are the result of corruption or something. No way anyone doesn’t foresee companies playing them this way.

Re: Lanai, the mystery CPU architecture in LLVM

#83

Post by edgyquant »

_tom_ wrote: post #60
jandrese wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The CEO capped the full time headcount at 49 people so he wouldn’t be subject to California law requiring him to provide his employees with a health plan. Can you imagine being this stingy and short sighted? The employees are largely PhDs and he is willing to cripple his company to avoid paying benefits.

I believe that There are many things that kick in at 50 people. It's oversimplifying to assume this was due to not wanting to offer benefits. First google hit: https://www.aeisadvisors.com/california-compliance-is-my-com...

Why 50? Isn’t that arbitrary? Why not just force benefits for all employees? At least target revenue, if a company makes X revenue it has to provide Y benefits per employee. CEOs definitely won’t be able to easily make the decision to take in less money, as that will piss off share holders.

Re: Lanai, the mystery CPU architecture in LLVM

#84

Post by duskwuff »

uluyol wrote: post #14
monocasa wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google isn't really forcing anyone to do anything in this case. Another RISC backend that was made clear would be ripped out of upstream the instant the Google maintainers stopped responding isn't really an imposition.

Would something like this be accepted in open source projects that are not significantly driven by Google? E.g. would Linux accept code for drivers / architectures that are not available to the public? I'm genuinely curious.

> E.g. would Linux accept code for drivers / architectures that are not available to the public?

Drivers is an unequivocal "yes". Here's an example -- from Google, in fact:

https://github.com/torvalds/linux/commit/e561bc45920aade3f8a...

Architectures is less likely. But the pendulum has swung away from "making your own architecture" anyways.

Re: Lanai, the mystery CPU architecture in LLVM

#85

Post by drewg123 »

ChuckMcM wrote: post #75
drewg123 wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I worked there and have evidence that this statement in the blog is not true, and I'm being down-voted?

Downvotes are fickle things. Unrelated, why turn down the health care? With double health care you can tell you're health provider you've got double coverage and they will bill the primary first, and then the secondary for what is left (and if the secondary is designed to be a primary program it will cover all that is left so you end up with zero out of pocket, even for co-payments).

Because it was CA focused, and I was remote. So most local providers were out of network. And it was not free ... Its been almost a decade, but I seem to recall that it was cheaper to add me to my (then) wife's coverage.

Re: Lanai, the mystery CPU architecture in LLVM

#86

Post by jcelerier »

tedunangst wrote: post #71
jcelerier wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. Run `strings /usr/lib/libLLVM.so| grep -i Lanai` to check on your version ; mine has all the relevant symbols

Oh, wow. I'm honestly surprised. My build does not.

afaik, by default LLVM builds support for all its supported architectures, I guess you passed -DLLVM_TARGETS_TO_BUILD="X86" or something to cmake when building your llvm ?

Re: Lanai, the mystery CPU architecture in LLVM

#87

Post by lumost »

_tom_ wrote: post #60
jandrese wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The CEO capped the full time headcount at 49 people so he wouldn’t be subject to California law requiring him to provide his employees with a health plan. Can you imagine being this stingy and short sighted? The employees are largely PhDs and he is willing to cripple his company to avoid paying benefits.

I believe that There are many things that kick in at 50 people. It's oversimplifying to assume this was due to not wanting to offer benefits. First google hit: https://www.aeisadvisors.com/california-compliance-is-my-com...

Defense contracting also has special bonus's when your company is less than 50 people IIRC.

Re: Lanai, the mystery CPU architecture in LLVM

#88

Post by wincy »

drewg123 wrote: post #85
ChuckMcM wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Downvotes are fickle things. Unrelated, why turn down the health care? With double health care you can tell you're health provider you've got double coverage and they will bill the primary first, and then the secondary for what is left (and if the secondary is designed to be a primary program it will cover all that is left so you end up with zero out of pocket, even for co-payments).

Because it was CA focused, and I was remote. So most local providers were out of network. And it was not free ... Its been almost a decade, but I seem to recall that it was cheaper to add me to my (then) wife's coverage.

It’d be pretty annoying to have a Kaiser Permanente focused insurance plan and live in Ohio.

Re: Lanai, the mystery CPU architecture in LLVM

#89

Post by acdha »

djbusby wrote: post #53
foobiekr wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s not even that hard or expensive to offer 401k, health, life insurance in a startup. Been there, done that.

At least 10k/yr/employee.

How much revenue are those people generating? Don't you think being able to hire and retain more highly-skilled people might be worth more than the $5/hour “saved”? (For example, how much does it cost to hire someone — most places spend many thousands doing that)

Re: Lanai, the mystery CPU architecture in LLVM

#90

Post by dylan604 »

foobiekr wrote: post #38
jandrese wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The CEO capped the full time headcount at 49 people so he wouldn’t be subject to California law requiring him to provide his employees with a health plan. Can you imagine being this stingy and short sighted? The employees are largely PhDs and he is willing to cripple his company to avoid paying benefits.

It’s not even that hard or expensive to offer 401k, health, life insurance in a startup. Been there, done that.

That's a very strange comment to make for other people's fiscal situations where you know nothing about their particulars.
Post reply on HN