GPL fast CPU bug - not dead, but sleeping?

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 bloody 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://scrapyard.9ug.com "After all, a mere thousand yards - such a harmless little knoll, really" - Raymond Mays on Shelsley Walsh.

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 Buttery" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (21 lines)

> 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 bloody 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://scrapyard.9ug.com > "After all, a mere thousand yards - such a harmless little knoll, > really" - Raymond Mays on Shelsley Walsh.

Alex Cameron <[email hidden]> wrote on 26 May 2001: > 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.

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 [email hidden] "David Buttery" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (15 lines)

> Alex Cameron <[email hidden]> wrote on 26 May 2001: > > > 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.

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 "Alex Cameron" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:_JQP6.567061$[email hidden]... > A 64bit integer is 'allot' more than double the size of a 32bit integer soI

Quoted text (30 lines)

> 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 Buttery" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > 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 bloody 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://scrapyard.9ug.com > > "After all, a mere thousand yards - such a harmless little knoll, > > really" - Raymond Mays on Shelsley Walsh. > >

Ian Barrett <[email hidden]> wrote on 26 May 2001:

Quoted text (7 lines)

> 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

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.

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. David Buttery wrote...

Quoted text (10 lines)

> <snip> > 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.

"Ian Barrett" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:AnRP6.2083$[email hidden]... > 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 about three years then <g>

Jan Verschueren <[email hidden]> wrote on 26 May 2001: > Would get my vote... nationally subsidized simracing programs, a > 1/4 of the budget towards telecom infrastructure... ;-) 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.

"Alex Cameron" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:_JQP6.567061$[email hidden]... > A 64bit integer is 'allot' more than double the size of a 32bit integer soI > 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 :-) 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

I have no idea where that 2.8GHz number came from. The patch should be good up to ~ 1000GHz (would that be 1THz?) Randy "David Buttery" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (7 lines)

> 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.

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. "randy cassidy" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:wiwQ6.12629$[email hidden]... > I have no idea where that 2.8GHz number came from. The patch should begood

Quoted text (16 lines)

> up to ~ 1000GHz (would that be 1THz?) > > Randy > > "David Buttery" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > 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. > > >