Re: [musl] GCC optimizer is provably junk. Here is the evidence.

Re: [musl] GCC optimizer is provably junk. Here is the evidence.

[Tomas Volf]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2365 bytes --]

On 2024-03-24 13:20:36 -0500, Dave Blanchard wrote:
> Here's a nice gem from Julian Waters, a thoroughly pleasant and amiable fellow:
>
> > Hello again, Dave. Have you managed to learn how a basic language
> > Interpreter works before commenting on the significantly-more-complex
> > gcc's efficiency? Or were you not able to because your IQ is below the
> > freezing point of water and you can't even understand what a basic
> > tree walker is?
>
> > Then again, with an address like killthe.net, why should we even take
> > you seriously? Hell, even though I miraculously agree that stuff like
> > GNU and Linux is not beginner friendly, and gcc could do with some
> > improvements in that department, no one wants to take any advice from
> > a self righteous and idiotic piece of shit like yourself. At least
> > Stefan was smart enough to bail when others pointed out the holes in
> > his examples of gcc's instruction selection allegedly being poor. You,
> > not so much. I doubt the clang people want you either, so do them a
> > favour and stay the hell away from LLVM, and this is coming from
> > someone who doesn't really like LLVM in the first place.
>

Since this message seems to be in violation of GCC's code of conduct, I assume
you brought that up.  What was the conclusion of that?  If you did not, why not?

> In my view, the entire GNU organization is a toxic cancer on the UNIX
> world...and it was designed to be exactly that from the very beginning.
>
> It appears the true purpose of GNU was to "embrace, extend, extinguish" the
> fledgling UNIX open source world; to capture and control it with sinister and
> selfish motives and intentions; exactly the same strategy as Microsoft has
> famously used elsewhere, and exactly the same as RedHat along with Linux
> Puttering and their ilk have continued today. When one understands this, and a
> lot of things that don't make any sense will suddenly become clear.
>

This is quite severe accusation, one that does not really seem to be based in
much facts.  Regardless of what you think of GNU software regarding bloat and
some other choices, we collectively own the movement much for advancing the
cause of free software in the original UNIX landscape full of proprietary tools.


--
There are only two hard things in Computer Science:
cache invalidation, naming things and off-by-one errors.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: [musl] GCC optimizer is provably junk. Here is the evidence.

[Rich Felker]

On Sun, Mar 24, 2024 at 01:20:36PM -0500, Dave Blanchard wrote:
> To whom it may concern--e.g. users of GCC who naively assume GCC is
> maintained by professionals who care about correct code generation:

It does not concern us, so please remove the musl list from CC here
and please do not CC this list trying to start flamewars that have
nothing to do with us.

If some folks CC'd on this do want to participate, please remove us
from CC in your replies.