rec.autos.simulators

GPL fast CPU bug - not dead, but sleeping?

David Butte

GPL fast CPU bug - not dead, but sleeping?

by David Butte » Mon, 28 May 2001 00:28:43

So Papy have fixed the >1.4GHz bug, and for that we must say "thank
you" a thousand times over. BUt...

I'm sure someone mentioned that GPL would now work with CPUs "up to
about 2.8GHz". Given that this is double 1.4GHz, it doesn't take a
genius to surmise that the programmer has just halved/doubled the
relevant numbers in the code.

So... can this be done again down the track to go up to 5.6GHz? Or will
there ever be a fix allowing *unlimited* processor speeds?

This is pretty academic for me ATM, so I'll just end by saying:

Papyrus, you are fantastic! I might (*might*) even buy a ***y NASCAR
game because of this, and that's saying summat. Thank you again! :-)))

--
David. (GPLRank handicap: -5.92; Monsters of GPLRank h/cap +282.87)
The GPL Scrapyard: http://www.racesimcentral.net/
"After all, a mere thousand yards - such a harmless little knoll,
really" - Raymond Mays on Shelsley Walsh.

Alex Camero

GPL fast CPU bug - not dead, but sleeping?

by Alex Camero » Mon, 28 May 2001 01:21:14

A 64bit integer is 'allot' more than double the size of a 32bit integer so I
don't think that is going to be a problem again, by the time PCs get fast
enough to overflow a 64bit integer we will be playing something other then
GPL :-)

Alex

David Butte

GPL fast CPU bug - not dead, but sleeping?

by David Butte » Mon, 28 May 2001 01:24:34


Maybe - but the figure of 2.8GHz was explicitly mentioned - I can't
remember who by, but I've a feeling it was someone "in the know". Hope
you're right and I'm wrong :-)
--
David. (GPLRank handicap: -5.92; Monsters of GPLRank h/cap +282.87)
The GPL Scrapyard: http://scrapyard.9ug.com
"After all, a mere thousand yards - such a harmless little knoll,
really" - Raymond Mays on Shelsley Walsh.

Ian Barret

GPL fast CPU bug - not dead, but sleeping?

by Ian Barret » Mon, 28 May 2001 02:03:25

In reply to Tom Pabst's post of May24 Grant Reeve of Papyrus said

"hmmm, 2800? Where did that come from?
I belive the fix should be sufficient until pcs are at
least 4 billion times faster than current machines."

So don't you worry




> > A 64bit integer is 'allot' more than double the size of a 32bit
> > integer so I don't think that is going to be a problem again, by
> > the time PCs get fast enough to overflow a 64bit integer we will be
> > playing something other then GPL :-)

> Maybe - but the figure of 2.8GHz was explicitly mentioned - I can't
> remember who by, but I've a feeling it was someone "in the know". Hope
> you're right and I'm wrong :-)
> --
> David. (GPLRank handicap: -5.92; Monsters of GPLRank h/cap +282.87)
> The GPL Scrapyard: http://scrapyard.9ug.com
> "After all, a mere thousand yards - such a harmless little knoll,
> really" - Raymond Mays on Shelsley Walsh.

Stuart Becktel

GPL fast CPU bug - not dead, but sleeping?

by Stuart Becktel » Mon, 28 May 2001 02:11:19

I don't think that it would be a problem anyways, but if it was, you could
use one of the slow 1.4 GHz P4's at that time :) Seriously, it would be
easier to run a second computer when we are 2.8 GHz then when we are at 1.7
GHz because the lower end of the market will be filled with more processors
in the future.
-Stuart Becktell

> A 64bit integer is 'allot' more than double the size of a 32bit integer so
I
> don't think that is going to be a problem again, by the time PCs get fast
> enough to overflow a 64bit integer we will be playing something other then
> GPL :-)

> Alex


> > So Papy have fixed the >1.4GHz bug, and for that we must say "thank
> > you" a thousand times over. BUt...

> > I'm sure someone mentioned that GPL would now work with CPUs "up to
> > about 2.8GHz". Given that this is double 1.4GHz, it doesn't take a
> > genius to surmise that the programmer has just halved/doubled the
> > relevant numbers in the code.

> > So... can this be done again down the track to go up to 5.6GHz? Or will
> > there ever be a fix allowing *unlimited* processor speeds?

> > This is pretty academic for me ATM, so I'll just end by saying:

> > Papyrus, you are fantastic! I might (*might*) even buy a ***y NASCAR
> > game because of this, and that's saying summat. Thank you again! :-)))

> > --
> > David. (GPLRank handicap: -5.92; Monsters of GPLRank h/cap +282.87)
> > The GPL Scrapyard: http://www.racesimcentral.net/
> > "After all, a mere thousand yards - such a harmless little knoll,
> > really" - Raymond Mays on Shelsley Walsh.

David Butte

GPL fast CPU bug - not dead, but sleeping?

by David Butte » Mon, 28 May 2001 04:02:00


That's what I like to hear :-)

And - yet again - excellent support by Papyrus. Pity nominations have
closed for the (UK) General Election - I could have stood for the "Papy
is ace" party... :-)

--
David. (GPLRank handicap: -5.92; Monsters of GPLRank h/cap +282.87)
The GPL Scrapyard: http://scrapyard.9ug.com
"After all, a mere thousand yards - such a harmless little knoll,
really" - Raymond Mays on Shelsley Walsh.

Jan Verschuere

GPL fast CPU bug - not dead, but sleeping?

by Jan Verschuere » Mon, 28 May 2001 04:29:41

Would get my vote... nationally subsidized simracing programs, a 1/4 of the
budget towards telecom infrastructure... ;-)

Jan.
=---
"Pay attention when I'm talking to you boy!" -Foghorn Leghorn.

Simon Brow

GPL fast CPU bug - not dead, but sleeping?

by Simon Brow » Mon, 28 May 2001 05:12:33


So about three years then <g>

David Butte

GPL fast CPU bug - not dead, but sleeping?

by David Butte » Mon, 28 May 2001 07:48:32


2001:

Also:

* No F1 sim to be released without Internet support
* All sims to come with track editors
* Legalisation of all addons
* John Surtees declared an outlaw...

--
David. (GPLRank handicap: -5.92; Monsters of GPLRank h/cap +282.87)
The GPL Scrapyard: http://scrapyard.9ug.com
"After all, a mere thousand yards - such a harmless little knoll,
really" - Raymond Mays on Shelsley Walsh.

Yousuf Kha

GPL fast CPU bug - not dead, but sleeping?

by Yousuf Kha » Tue, 29 May 2001 01:34:42


The single-register 64-bit integer is just a year or so away, with the
introduction of the AMD Hammer families. Might need to go to 128-bit at that
point, in order to spread it out over two registers again. :-)

        Yousuf Khan

randy cassid

GPL fast CPU bug - not dead, but sleeping?

by randy cassid » Wed, 30 May 2001 02:55:40

I have no idea where that 2.8GHz number came from.  The patch should be good
up to ~ 1000GHz (would that be 1THz?)

Randy


Marc Collin

GPL fast CPU bug - not dead, but sleeping?

by Marc Collin » Sat, 02 Jun 2001 06:35:13

I think that should suffice.  You guys will have GPL2 out by then won't
you?? :)

Please, please, please consider a 1976 update that will tweak the physics a
bit and add in the '76 cars and tracks.  I think you can see from various
discussions that we would be happy to pay you guys directly for this work!!
What Sierra and others don't know won't hurt them.

Seriously, if licensing could be arranged, you could re-package the existing
(1.3) GPL and make some money out of the damned thing with a few new tracks
and a new car model (tires and wing physics, basically).  We would all pay
top dollar for your efforts.

Thanks again to all involved in the 1.3 patch.

Marc.


> I have no idea where that 2.8GHz number came from.  The patch should be
good
> up to ~ 1000GHz (would that be 1THz?)

> Randy



> > So Papy have fixed the >1.4GHz bug, and for that we must say "thank
> > you" a thousand times over. BUt...

> > I'm sure someone mentioned that GPL would now work with CPUs "up to
> > about 2.8GHz". Given that this is double 1.4GHz, it doesn't take a
> > genius to surmise that the programmer has just halved/doubled the
> > relevant numbers in the code.


rec.autos.simulators is a usenet newsgroup formed in December, 1993. As this group was always unmoderated there may be some spam or off topic articles included. Some links do point back to racesimcentral.net as we could not validate the original address. Please report any pages that you believe warrant deletion from this archive (include the link in your email). RaceSimCentral.net is in no way responsible and does not endorse any of the content herein.