AbSoft Is Looking For A G5 Compiler Engineer

tjmtjm
Posted:
in Future Apple Hardware edited January 2014
Compiler Engineer





Absoft is actively involved in compiler development on all levels. A successful job candidate will take a leading role in developing advanced code generators, optimization and instruction scheduling technologies and other components of future compilers for Intel's IA64 (Itanium) and IBM/Motorola PowerPC G4/G5 processors.



Other opportunities exist in both front-end and back-end design and development projects and other related tools for debugging, profiling, and multi-processing environments.



Requirements:



Bachelors or Masters degree in Computer Science or Computer Engineering. Very strong math background and good programming skills in C/C++ required. Must have experience with Unix, WindowsNT or Macintosh software development environments. Knowledge of Fortran and/or multiprocessing systems a plus.



US citizen, Green Card, or Employment Authorization Card.



Position available immediately. Must be willing to relocate to the Rochester, MI area.



<a href="http://www.absoft.com/compeng.html"; target="_blank">Absoft Employment Ad</a>



Odd that they would want to design a compiler for a chip that doesn't exist (according to a few very persistent posters).
«134

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 75
    kidredkidred Posts: 2,402member
    muuahahahahaah more incrimidating evidence!!
  • Reply 2 of 75
    fieldorfieldor Posts: 213member
    G5 is defintly coming!!!!!

    Hoera Hoera.
  • Reply 3 of 75
    Hehe. Nice.
  • Reply 4 of 75
    I think another clue to an update at the end of january for the powermacs is something steve said during his keynote.



    "starting today, OS X will be the default boot-OS on the products shown here today and they rest of our products by the end of the month."



    hmmm.....

    What is so difficult about making X the default boot-OS on powermacs now? I mean if the intro of the new powermacs is months off (MWtokyo) why would you wait months to follow through?

    When he says that the powermacs will have it default by the end of January leads me to believe there will be a lil "special event" taking place at apple intro the new pro machine.



    just my $0.02
  • Reply 5 of 75
    Software doesn't write itself overnight. Better to be prepared for the G5's eventual release than not. By getting the necessary backgroud info, you can prepare code to be ready for a currently non-existant chip.



    No one is doubting that Moto is building a G5 someday; there is considerable doubt (I'd saying overwhelming) that it's coming out any time soon.



    SdC
  • Reply 6 of 75
    andersanders Posts: 6,523member
    [quote]Originally posted by SameOldSht:

    <strong>

    What is so difficult about making X the default boot-OS on powermacs now?</strong><hr></blockquote>



    The boxes out in the shop perhaps?



    But I actually thought the same thing when I heard Jobs say it.
  • Reply 7 of 75
    [quote]Originally posted by suckfuldotcom:

    <strong>



    No one is doubting that Moto is building a G5 someday; there is considerable doubt (I'd saying overwhelming) that it's coming out any time soon.



    SdC</strong><hr></blockquote>



    I'd say there's overwhelming evidence that the G5 has been in development for a very long time.



    <a href="http://www.amir.com/amir/vita.html"; target="_blank">http://www.amir.com/amir/vita.html</a>;
  • Reply 8 of 75
    sc_marktsc_markt Posts: 1,393member
    timortis,



    I like the link that references the G5. Its more evidence that its coming.



    Good job!



    - Mark
  • Reply 9 of 75
    stimulistimuli Posts: 564member
    So, like, they'll just write a compiler, and hope it works on the G5? or maybe they'll close their eyes, and imagine what it would do on a 64 bit, non-existant chip?



    Dude, face it, g5 is on it's way.
  • Reply 10 of 75
    kidredkidred Posts: 2,402member
    [quote]Originally posted by stimuli:

    <strong>So, like, they'll just write a compiler, and hope it works on the G5? or maybe they'll close their eyes, and imagine what it would do on a 64 bit, non-existant chip?



    Dude, face it, g5 is on it's way.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    LMAO!!
  • Reply 11 of 75
    bodhibodhi Posts: 1,424member
    timortis -



    I am assuming that is your resume?



    Why in the hell would you include a link to MOSR?
  • Reply 12 of 75
    Even better, this page is not so new.



    Using Internet Explorer (doesn't work in Omniweb), type instead of the address:

    javascript:alert(document.lastModified)



    Result: 11/19/2001 17:08:02 for this page.



    (by the way, the Epson.Se page was written in the beginning of November)



    Anyway, something is now sure: G5 were seeded to select developers/hardware makers.

    When it will be released is another question, but given this, it should _at worse_ come in July...



    Bruno
  • Reply 12 of 75
    kidredkidred Posts: 2,402member
    [quote]

    No one is doubting that Moto is building a G5 someday; there is considerable doubt (I'd saying overwhelming) that it's coming out any time soon. <hr></blockquote>



    Overwhelming doubt that's it's not coming out anytime soon? Dude, what have you been reading? Other then the lack of hard evidence everthing points to the G5 coming out next.



    Epson, Aimga, VueScan, Afsoft all speak of the G5. It has been in development for 2 years.

    Moto acknowledged it's existance but refused to elaborate. Brand new iMacs that rock design wise, making the current QS case a pre-school design joke. The iMacs now have G4's. The G4's are almost topped out scale wise, only a few bump's left. Apollo's are for the embedded market. If used in a desktop, it would be the iMac. Why would an acheivmnet like the iMac get second hand G4 chips? Apple want's the 3D and video market.





    I mean I can go on with more circustancial evidence for then there is against the G5.



    Apple was CIA secretive with the iMac. Is it that hard to assume they can't be the same way with the G5?



    Anyway, believe or not, that's your call. I am starting to really believe.
  • Reply 14 of 75
    [quote]Originally posted by KidRed:

    <strong>

    Apple was CIA secretive with the iMac. Is it that hard to assume they can't be the same way with the G5?

    </strong><hr></blockquote>



    well the g5 is more on motos end(in terms of secrecy) because moto will design and fab the g5, whereas the new iMac was all apple(for the most part at least)



    on top of that, I feel that steve has a solid plan this time, that the iMac would get the SUPER SUPER SUPER hype, because that way it will get millions of heads to turn, THEN once the iMac:tower Price Performance issues are realized by pros and the smarter consumers, they say "hey whats up with these shitty towers" then WAM! apple hits them with a 1.6 ghz 64 bit ddr g5...IF this is the case then everyone will go "oh my god! apple really does have their shit together, they are smarter than we give them credit"



    besides the iMac with its super secrecy was totally shatttered by TIME, steve should have known better

    ( NOT!...the tiem article could be the best thing since the iMac for apple)



    at any rate I still am,and always have been,optimistic about the g5, and I still believe that apple has a plan and it very well may work, if the g5 is good enough
  • Reply 15 of 75
    kidredkidred Posts: 2,402member
    I agree. re: the time article. While Time did shatter the secrecy, they did it the night before the show after 6 months of development and only because they have the article/photos to run for print the following day. They didn't get some scoop from some mole, they did the article on Jobs & the iMac-not really a 'discovery' ya know.



    That's why I think the G5 has more of a chance being next in line for the towers as it does for not being ready.
  • Reply 16 of 75
    [quote]Originally posted by stimuli:

    <strong>So, like, they'll just write a compiler, and hope it works on the G5? or maybe they'll close their eyes, and imagine what it would do on a 64 bit, non-existant chip?



    Dude, face it, g5 is on it's way.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Don't be dense. You code to the spec, which will get you 99% of where you need to be, you wait for the seeds to get out in the community, then you test against the seed and bash out the last few bugs.



    [QUOTE]Originally posted by kidred:

    <strong>Epson, Aimga, VueScan, Afsoft all speak of the G5. It has been in development for 2 years.

    Moto acknowledged it's existance but refused to elaborate. Brand new iMacs that rock design wise, making the current QS case a pre-school design joke. The iMacs now have G4's. The G4's are almost topped out scale wise, only a few bump's left. Apollo's are for the embedded market.</strong>



    1) "Development" is not the same as production. The typical production cycle for a new chip is measured in years, not months, and only toward the end is there actually a physical product.



    2) The G4 is NOT topped out speed-wise. Adding SOI and a die shrink and copper interconnects will all add speed to the G4, probably well in excess of 1 GHz.



    3) THe Apollos is for embedded use? So was the 7400, and the 7450, and the 750 and the 604, and the 603, and the 602, and the 601. So will the 7460 and the 8xxx. Get this through your head: Apple uses Motorola chips designed for embedded uses as desktop/notebook chips.



    SdC



    [ 01-11-2002: Message edited by: suckfuldotcom ]</p>
  • Reply 17 of 75
    [quote]It won't change the coding that much at all. The G5 is still a PPC and being a PPC chip just doesn't mean it share the same name they share a common architecture. Every processor still has it's instruction set and that's what the Programmers are concerned with. Now moving from say a Motorola 68000 Series to a PPC 601 was a changes...lucky Apple wrote a decent emulator until Native apps came. No such probs with the G5...it's all fairly the same. OSX also does a better job Abstracting the HW from the SW. No SW can talk directly to the HW.<hr></blockquote>



    This is from hmurchison in a different thread.



    In other words, there is no difference between coding for G4 or G5.



    Ergo, there is no difference between a G4 coder and a G5 coder.



    Ergo, the alleged 'need' for G5 coders because of the imminent release of the G5 is nonsensical.



    Ergo, we have to state that there continues to be no good evidence of an imminent release of the G5, whereas the evidence behind the Apollo continues to mount.



    Ergo, despite all of the Tinkerbell Effect (if you wish hard enough....) in the world, the G5 will continue to be seriously in-the-future tech.



    You know what?



    I'd like to be wrong about the G5. I really would.



    But I'm not.



    Say hello to Apollo, kids! 'Cuz here it comes!



    SdC
  • Reply 18 of 75
    mmicistmmicist Posts: 214member
    [quote]Originally posted by suckfuldotcom:

    <strong>

    In other words, there is no difference between coding for G4 or G5.



    Ergo, there is no difference between a G4 coder and a G5 coder.



    Ergo, the alleged 'need' for G5 coders because of the imminent release of the G5 is nonsensical.

    etc., etc. etc.

    </strong><hr></blockquote>



    Note what Absoft produce: compilers.



    A compiler writer really needs access to the chip the compiler is producing code for, needs to know the effects of each instruction in terms of delay, blocking of resources, use of new resources, etc., and how this may differ from previous chips.



    Even for other coders, there is sometimes a difference between code you write for different chips, and many programmes may include small sections of assembler which may need rewriting to get the most from the new chip.



    You are overgeneralising desperately.



    Michael
  • Reply 19 of 75
    [quote]Originally posted by KidRed:

    <strong>

    Apollo's are for the embedded market.

    </strong><hr></blockquote>



    Um, says who?

    (Besides, funnily enough, Apollo will supposedly be the PPC7460, and traditionally, the prefixing 7 denotes it's a desktop processor - the G5 on the other hand will, according to Moto's roadmap, be a PPC85xx, the prefixing 8 traditionally denoting embedded / integrated processors.)





    [quote]<strong>

    Apple was CIA secretive with the iMac. Is it that hard to assume they can't be the same way with the G5?

    </strong><hr></blockquote>



    Well, unlike the iMac, Apple don't even produce the G5 (Motorola do). And IIRC Moto gave technology presentations on both the original 7400 and the 7450 before Apple actually built systems based on them.





    [quote]<strong>

    Anyway, believe or not, that's your call. I am starting to really believe.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Well, I'm keeping my fingers crossed too.



    Bye,

    RazzFazz
  • Reply 20 of 75
    [quote]Originally posted by Wrong Robot:

    <strong>

    THEN once the iMac:tower Price Performance issues are realized by pros and the smarter consumers, they say "hey whats up with these shitty towers" then WAM! apple hits them with a 1.6 ghz 64 bit ddr g5...

    </strong><hr></blockquote>



    I doubt Apple will have the pro line move so far ahead of the iMac, unless those machines would be insanely expensive.



    Bye,

    RazzFazz
Sign In or Register to comment.