From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail.killthe.net (mail.killthe.net [207.126.114.3]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 900F63858D20 for ; Mon, 5 Jun 2023 22:21:44 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org 900F63858D20 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=killthe.net Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=killthe.net Received: from magic (unknown [172.58.248.111]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.killthe.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0B1CB12689D for ; Mon, 5 Jun 2023 18:21:42 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2023 17:23:57 -0500 From: Dave Blanchard To: gcc@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: Will GCC eventually learn to use BSR or even TZCNT on AMD/Intel processors? Message-Id: <20230605172357.26fd016cc091c350facb1cec@killthe.net> In-Reply-To: <5fe1271b-18f5-6faa-d48d-669c87bbd893@gmail.com> References: <5982A5DF4D694B4EA971B2597E833FC6@H270> <5fe1271b-18f5-6faa-d48d-669c87bbd893@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,KAM_DMARC_STATUS,KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_NONE,TXREP,T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org List-Id: On Mon, 5 Jun 2023 13:35:22 +0200 Gabriel Ravier via Gcc wrote: > [pages of bullshit deleted] > > 2. Are you aware that these emails are not only pretty useless, but > potentially actively counterproductive ? I'd personally expect GCC > developers, who are rightfully not particularly happy at the thought of > having to constantly suffer your belittling emails, to at best actively > ignore them - but even worse from what I presume would be your POV (that > of someone who wants GCC's optimizer to improve), this constant spam > might give rise to what would be a pretty reasonable response: to be > biased against any proposed improvement that comes from or derives from > your emails. Sounds like the response of an idiot, or a malignant individual who isn't interested in improving their junk code. A not-uncommon response in today's world, full of arrogant, self-righteous, brittle individuals who just can't stand criticism. > PS: I hope you understand that I'm being somewhat generous when assuming > you genuinely want to get GCC's optimizer to improve, What? Are you claiming he *doesn't* want to see it improved? > Someone else might instead think you're just a troll Not you, of course. No sir. You're smarter than that, right? > that uses this as a pretext to send > inflammatory emails everywhere and waste the time of people like me. I thought the entire purpose of these threads was to call attention to the fact that our time IS being wasted already, by the shitty GCC optimizer? Dave