I was wondering why SSE2 and SSE3 kernel have been seperated? Can't the two kernels be combined and detection of SSE3 just disables the software SSE2 functions? It seems like its more effort for you having to maintain 2 kernels rather than a unified one.
My reasoning behind this is that it seems SSE2 are slowly becoming second class citizens, so much work is put into the SSE3 kernel and it takes a long time for the SSE2 kernel to catch up. Unified, this would bring all new additions to both camps at the same time.
Also, have you reconsidered the possibility of opening the source to the SSE2 kernel? I must admit id certainly like the ability to compile my own SSE2 kernel. If you don't want to release it publicly, do you take requests for individual access to the source code?
These comments should stay at insanelymac.. seriously man.. You want to compile your own kernel yet you seem to fail to understand why SSE3 development is happening before the SSE2.
There are no camps.. just one community who wants to support every possible hardware out there.. It just takes time and effort. Developers have their own way of working. Their resoning and justification belong to them.
I understand everybody has demands and suggestions. However, the developers are not your employees.
Please go back and read my question to Semthex. I was polite and made no demands whatsoever. I am honestly interested in knowing the reasoning behind certain decisions. I consider myself technical enough to know that a unified kernel should be possible.
Originally Posted by eskurza
I totally appreciate developers have their own way of working, this is why I posed my question to Semthex and not to you. He is the only one that can explain why he chose to do it this way. I ask because i'd like to know the answer not because i'm trying to change how he develops.
This has been discussed since the beginning of the project.. But doesnt matter.
I am sure Semthex will answer your questions accordingly.
By Leopard, the SSE2 days will be over anyways.
I see no reason technically why SSE2 kernels can't be continued if 10.5 kernel source code will be provided by Apple.
Originally Posted by eskurza
If the primary kernel developers choose not to do a SSE2 kernel, us users will have to accept that change and upgrade to a CPU that does.
>I was wondering why SSE2 and SSE3 kernel have been seperated?
answer is simple
to get sse2 kernel works on all amd, i have to disable there em64t, since no intel sse2 em64t procs, it's good way.
sse2 kernel may be used on intels, sse3emu will be disabled then, and em64t too.
Thanks for the reply. So really the SSE2 kernel exists mostly due to AMD SSE2 users and not because of Intel users?
Does that mean the SSE2 emulation code could be put into the SSE3 kernel and enabled and disabled based on the features of the processor? Or would there be issues with em64t?
Obviously this would be confusing for most users but maybe something like this could be considered as an "undocumented" feature such that advanced users could use the SSE3 kernel on Intel SSE2 CPUs (mostly thinking from the perspective of Intel Pentium M processors - common in laptops)?
For .48 there will be a universal kernel. With source it is be able to be done, for binary this is kinda useless. you see even source development takes some time. I and the others who work on it do this as a hobby and cause we like Apple, that's not our job nor our "business". Because it is a project done on base of free time, we have not the facilitys like a company but still the few peopel aroudnw orking on it do a good job immo.
I hope everyone enjoys this, but just wait a bit, at least for 10.4.8 we have a universal soon and until Apple releases the 4.9 source we have to wait for a real universal 10.4.9 one.
If it comes to leopard, noone can see in the future, we will see what comes, no promise no rejects yet. This OS wasn't even published yet. Wait til it is there and we can go on :)
Thank you Semthex for the reply. You pretty much summed up what I expected, that with source a universal kernel could be made. In the long run it would be far easier for you to maintain since you just have to focus on one kernel. The number of issues on the other forums due to users not understand which kernel to use is astronomical. A universal kernel would make developers lives just that much easier.
Personally, I am more in favour of source based kernels than hacked binary based ones, which is why I have stayed with the 10.4.8 kernel (holding out for speedstep support). From a legal point of view, will source kernels be the only option due to the changed license agreement in the updated 10.4.8 source and onwards? To me, it seems that distribution of a modified kernel will violate the user agreement and the only option will be for each user to compile their own kernel (plus patches) for "eductional" use only.
As long as Apple continues to provide source code (I doubt they will stop providing it) there will always be the ability to create highly advanced customised kernels such as what Semthex has done.
Hello, I want to add I just finished my exams and found some time to try out this new kernel ;)
Unfortunetely it didn't go too wel :P It could be worse.. but not stable :P
What I did:
installed OS X 10.4.9 Delta from APPLE.
replaced AppleSMBIOS.kext (the one from Paulicat which he used for 10.4.8..)
replaced the old kernel with this new baby.
Reboot, failed. reboot -s, failed, reboot -s -x worked! deleted mkexts and kextcache..
After some fooling around I passed the loginwindow, everything VERY SLOW but working (and instable..)
Is there any way to make it more stable lol. >_>
2.8 Ghz SSE2 P4, GIGABYTE 865PE mobo. 6600Gt agp gfx card :P