By: Yuhong Bao (yuhongbao_386.delete@this.hotmail.com), April 20, 2019 2:35 pm
Room: Moderated Discussions
Jukka Larja (roskakori2006.delete@this.gmail.com) on April 19, 2019 10:44 am wrote:
> Gian-Carlo Pascutto (gcp.delete@this.sjeng.org) on April 19, 2019 9:46 am wrote:
> > Beastian (noemail.delete@this.aol.com) on April 19, 2019 9:05 am wrote:
> > > Does anyone think that the upcoming expiry of patents on the core x86-64 instruction set
> > > which includes SSE2, maybe sooner than 2023 (as the Athlon 64 was introduced in 2003) would
> > > open the flood gates for third party implementations of compatible processors?
> > >
> > > The basic architecture including importantly the memory model could freely be implemented in hardware
> > > once that core instruction set falls out of patent; I'm unclear about the amount of traction that later
> > > Intel instructions have gotten in common software, but emulation could at least ensure compatibility.
> >
> >
> > We (Mozilla) dropped support for non-SSE2 systems in 2016. The next thing would be SSE3. I
> > strongly suspect most software on your desktop still works just fine without SSE3 support.
>
> Steam Hardware Survey is a nice place to see approximate features on still-in-use
> CPUs. SSE3 is on everything, and CMPXCHG16B, LAHF and SAHF (required by Windows 8.1
> and above) are on almost everything. The latter were introduced in March 2005 (according
> to Wikipedia), but I have no idea if there's anything patentable in them.
>
> I think we (Frozenbyte) decided to require CMPXCHG16B, although we still support Windows 7, simply because
> it would be too much trouble to come up with something different for Windows (all consoles support the
> instruction or equivalent. Not sure if anyone's actually acted on the decision yet though). On the other
> hand, almost 3 % of computers not supporting SSSE3 would be too much, even if SSSE3 contained something
> useful. AVX with just 88 % penetration is not something we need to worry about in few years.
>
> -JLarja
I don't think CMPXCHG16B would be patentable any more than CMPXCHG8B would be. The same applies for things like the FSGSBASE instructions I think.
> Gian-Carlo Pascutto (gcp.delete@this.sjeng.org) on April 19, 2019 9:46 am wrote:
> > Beastian (noemail.delete@this.aol.com) on April 19, 2019 9:05 am wrote:
> > > Does anyone think that the upcoming expiry of patents on the core x86-64 instruction set
> > > which includes SSE2, maybe sooner than 2023 (as the Athlon 64 was introduced in 2003) would
> > > open the flood gates for third party implementations of compatible processors?
> > >
> > > The basic architecture including importantly the memory model could freely be implemented in hardware
> > > once that core instruction set falls out of patent; I'm unclear about the amount of traction that later
> > > Intel instructions have gotten in common software, but emulation could at least ensure compatibility.
> >
> >
> > We (Mozilla) dropped support for non-SSE2 systems in 2016. The next thing would be SSE3. I
> > strongly suspect most software on your desktop still works just fine without SSE3 support.
>
> Steam Hardware Survey is a nice place to see approximate features on still-in-use
> CPUs. SSE3 is on everything, and CMPXCHG16B, LAHF and SAHF (required by Windows 8.1
> and above) are on almost everything. The latter were introduced in March 2005 (according
> to Wikipedia), but I have no idea if there's anything patentable in them.
>
> I think we (Frozenbyte) decided to require CMPXCHG16B, although we still support Windows 7, simply because
> it would be too much trouble to come up with something different for Windows (all consoles support the
> instruction or equivalent. Not sure if anyone's actually acted on the decision yet though). On the other
> hand, almost 3 % of computers not supporting SSSE3 would be too much, even if SSSE3 contained something
> useful. AVX with just 88 % penetration is not something we need to worry about in few years.
>
> -JLarja
I don't think CMPXCHG16B would be patentable any more than CMPXCHG8B would be. The same applies for things like the FSGSBASE instructions I think.
| Topic | Posted By | Date |
|---|---|---|
| Expiry of x86-64 patents | Beastian | 2019/04/19 09:05 AM |
| Expiry of x86-64 patents | Gian-Carlo Pascutto | 2019/04/19 09:46 AM |
| Expiry of x86-64 patents | Beastian | 2019/04/19 10:06 AM |
| Expiry of x86-64 patents | Jukka Larja | 2019/04/19 10:44 AM |
| Expiry of x86-64 patents | Gian-Carlo Pascutto | 2019/04/19 11:12 AM |
| Expiry of x86-64 patents | Jukka Larja | 2019/04/19 12:41 PM |
| Expiry of x86-64 patents | Robert Williams | 2019/04/19 01:18 PM |
| Expiry of x86-64 patents | Gian-Carlo Pascutto | 2019/04/19 02:35 PM |
| Expiry of x86-64 patents | Geoff Langdale | 2019/04/19 02:52 PM |
| Expiry of x86-64 patents | Jukka Larja | 2019/04/19 09:38 PM |
| Expiry of x86-64 patents | Yuhong Bao | 2019/04/20 02:35 PM |
| Expiry of x86-64 patents | Doug S | 2019/04/19 10:40 AM |
| Expiry of x86-64 patents | Beastian | 2019/04/19 11:10 AM |
| Expiry of x86-64 patents | Robert Williams | 2019/04/20 08:15 AM |
| Expiry of x86-64 patents | anyone | 2019/04/20 07:11 AM |
| Expiry of x86-64 patents | Groo | 2019/04/20 07:29 AM |
| Expiry of x86-64 patents | wumpus | 2019/04/20 08:32 AM |
| Intel vs AMD patents | Yuhong Bao | 2019/04/20 02:32 PM |
| Intel vs AMD patents | Beastian | 2019/04/20 03:35 PM |
| Expiry of x86-64 patents | Travis Downs | 2019/04/20 07:24 PM |
| Expiry of x86-64 patents | none | 2019/04/21 07:36 AM |
