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

151–160 of 163 posts

Re: Lanai, the mystery CPU architecture in LLVM

#151

Post by ChuckMcM »

jen20 wrote: post #93
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).

Is this generally the case? If so, I had no idea...

Generally different jurisdictions have different rules, but in California it is the case. And to another point made here, if you're employer is going to deduct some of your paycheck to pay premiums month to month then it can be a net loss if you won't use it enough to offset what you would have been paid.

Re: Lanai, the mystery CPU architecture in LLVM

#153

Post by edgyquant »

toast0 wrote: post #111
edgyquant wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I thought of this too, and it’s actually good system. Those small businesses should be exempt I think. It’s only the large corporations that should be forced to pay (I wouldn’t even be opposed to subsidizing health care for those businesses by taxing larger ones more.) I think a system where we go by revenue is a lot of logical than going by number of employees. If a business makes 1Bpy but only has two employees, wo…

Revenue isn't always a great way to measure the size of a business, because different businesses add different amount of value. And you can't use profit, because that's easy to game. For something like people benefits, predicating the requirement on the number of people employed makes a lot of sense. It's about as much work to setup a health plan for a two person firm as a 50 person firm, but many fewer people benefi…

I don’t disagree, I just think that using number of employees seems like one of the worst possible ways to handle company reaching X size. I came up with that off the top of my head there are surely better solutions.

Re: Lanai, the mystery CPU architecture in LLVM

#155

Post by Melatonic »

detaro wrote: post #73
gnufx wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For what it's worth, I've had rather more trouble with Ethernet than IB, especially given IB management facilities.

IB always seemed like the kind of thing where you loose out a lot of comfort if you go with "old hardware sometimes found cheaply" and thus don't have vendor support, have to dig out drivers and tools from random sources, ...

Probably was also difficult because I had no experience working with it, no support, and there is not nearly as many online forum posts and articles written about common issues.

Re: Lanai, the mystery CPU architecture in LLVM

#156

Post by otterley »

Qub3d wrote: post #148
otterley wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most NDAs are perpetual.

That is only enforceable for Trade Secrets -- at least in most of the US. Google would need to prove that the things this employee worked on were "essential to the commercial viability of the business". I totally understand not wanting to poke the legal behemoth, however. As an anecdotal, a personal friend who is a former Googler signed a 10-year NDA, and he had his fingers in quite a few pies. So maybe in 3 more yea…

> That is only enforceable for Trade Secrets

Do you have legal citations supporting this assertion? I'm fairly certain this isn't so.

Re: Lanai, the mystery CPU architecture in LLVM

#157

Post by edgyquant »

kergonath wrote: post #136
notreallyserio wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The easiest improvement would be to remove the employer from the equation and just provide taxpayer-funded benefits to all. The main reasons employers are still involved are inertia followed by a concern that employees won't feel as obligated to stay in shit jobs.

Sounds like socialism, though. Can’t have that!

I think there are arguments to be made in favor of a more free market approach (or a less free market one.) At this moment we seem to have the worst of both worlds.

Re: Lanai, the mystery CPU architecture in LLVM

#158

Post by nickm12 »

wheybags wrote: post #16

I gotta say, if I was the BDFL of llvm, I would kick this out of tree without a second thought. Why on earth should a foss project support a private architecture? How many man-hours have been wasted waiting for the Lanai backend to compile? Not to mention applying project-wide refactoring to the Lanai code.

That was my first reaction, too, but then I had a second thought. Google is going to do this work on this in-tree or out-of-tree. If it is done in-tree, then there is a possibility that it will lead to core improvements that would benefit all backends. If out-of-tree, those are guaranteed to happen. I don't think it's a slam dunk, but on the balance it could make sense. And once it is in-tree you can actually validate this hypothesis by seeing the impact (or not) of contributions from Google.

Re: Lanai, the mystery CPU architecture in LLVM

#159

Post by jsolson »

LosWochosWeek wrote: post #152
jsolson wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed.

I guess that's the "fairly" part of your comment?

Ah, no, the fairly was merely that we omitted details and some things have changed. That said, the paper completely captures the use of Lanai in GCP's networking data plane.

Re: Lanai, the mystery CPU architecture in LLVM

#160

Post by Qub3d »

otterley wrote: post #156
Qub3d wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is only enforceable for Trade Secrets -- at least in most of the US. Google would need to prove that the things this employee worked on were "essential to the commercial viability of the business". I totally understand not wanting to poke the legal behemoth, however. As an anecdotal, a personal friend who is a former Googler signed a 10-year NDA, and he had his fingers in quite a few pies. So maybe in 3 more yea…

> That is only enforceable for Trade Secrets Do you have legal citations supporting this assertion? I'm fairly certain this isn't so.

Mostly based off this quick search: https://www.everynda.com/blog/duration-clauses-non-disclosur...

As I said, I definitely understand not wanting to be the one to actually set precedent - that involves getting sued by Google, which is expensive and potentially career suicide. But I think ultimately its probably not enforceable.

Post reply on HN