From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wm1-x331.google.com (mail-wm1-x331.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::331]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BEC42385843A for ; Tue, 6 Jun 2023 00:28:30 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org BEC42385843A Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com Received: by mail-wm1-x331.google.com with SMTP id 5b1f17b1804b1-3f732d37d7bso21705965e9.0 for ; Mon, 05 Jun 2023 17:28:30 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20221208; t=1686011309; x=1688603309; h=content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:from:references:to :content-language:subject:user-agent:mime-version:date:message-id :from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=+XGSnsOuaeZqDQbE50USmN8dcuKTc16T0dQayS0M5o4=; b=flj8pdGTpH4JJSqK7Q3qCTiGYin6YSfhrbRQ02FaLkCo/aTjANy/75mjKLpARYlmqC ogzNNLGhAtu8FGigxQLb7BJGJ/9hPxAbERVkel3i5yMxYymO+44Apf19MrGN21M6kRLr uW/hNoNBAt4jJ9xV+s8woodctJqzjs66w1EDIHk5IUX/cgWNT7Vzjv/+8mi3SFO3KKDD ssMFshIizIFrlFRVN9TL97zVP9Y1nGsY1KSAoGkYd1Huu58mi92zldS/znw2SIFPpEcU uzokXS4Bfwseq/nVySvLMCoLgUByDHsZiY00TVUs/mta8iM5qmTZHBcc1x469rG7tSOe oWyg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20221208; t=1686011309; x=1688603309; h=content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:from:references:to :content-language:subject:user-agent:mime-version:date:message-id :x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=+XGSnsOuaeZqDQbE50USmN8dcuKTc16T0dQayS0M5o4=; b=WqN82i8dwrjj6U+Gu39PpCm4V6eV7E68+X1pl+fRbfzRvybUuO1L1pGT/cORUnHCYG dtSyz6YiU4PMGOSbYGxrGa/RqlS0CpnflFcahNhQ/ZWRh/IOaZkOlFHgFNTz53q2kUo5 U1WDh3oRiEZgS++145viYpXFFsDPF7WM/l63/rDnqay2HcJlKjyQCcA0LvTxoXs03cmY NdBiNioNYVLa4hWLVAKn3y4rFteIQMWQvPl6tNi3lep/KgwTTf2rZBPrwIIEcgvyq8d2 Tbet2rjjFzowqPL4eE1/XLhuPHpec3MRGmplN8zWsI6FZtr0wA1TLX5f41WQLpulBSyj Afrg== X-Gm-Message-State: AC+VfDzDbWHbinxc8p9qzF5KAAaygK6NqU6JO0RsMNgsME4kLJmjdGhn 4CGZExBmj+OPHUgkwCpWDyJIwIL5Ur9ULA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACHHUZ7Uj9bkpLxAWvwqmcUCpGmqBVXzB8y++uTYxA3Ed4CtOo9ofEzmrLjCEVomN3sRJUNzk1Yk6g== X-Received: by 2002:a7b:cb93:0:b0:3f7:352c:a1d with SMTP id m19-20020a7bcb93000000b003f7352c0a1dmr512137wmi.20.1686011309258; Mon, 05 Jun 2023 17:28:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.32.0.7] ([194.126.177.68]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id u1-20020a05600c210100b003f73a101f88sm6026392wml.16.2023.06.05.17.28.28 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 05 Jun 2023 17:28:28 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <7a6b6d06-d9c8-5c18-5e8a-26b8c6336dde@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2023 02:28:27 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.10.0 Subject: Re: Will GCC eventually learn to use BSR or even TZCNT on AMD/Intel processors? Content-Language: en-US To: Dave Blanchard , gcc@gcc.gnu.org References: <5982A5DF4D694B4EA971B2597E833FC6@H270> <5fe1271b-18f5-6faa-d48d-669c87bbd893@gmail.com> <20230605172357.26fd016cc091c350facb1cec@killthe.net> <7e12a44b-6525-c7e1-9d53-786206ee9719@gmail.com> <20230605190942.bf8c6a8156005dd0fa142c09@killthe.net> From: Gabriel Ravier In-Reply-To: <20230605190942.bf8c6a8156005dd0fa142c09@killthe.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,FREEMAIL_FROM,NICE_REPLY_A,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,TXREP,T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=ham 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 6/6/23 02:09, Dave Blanchard wrote: > On Tue, 6 Jun 2023 01:59:42 +0200 > Gabriel Ravier wrote: > >> [nothing of value] > If this guy's threads are such a terrible waste of your time, how about employing your email client's filters to ignore his posts (and mine too) and fuck off? > > Now YOU'RE wasting everyone's time, as your type is so skilled at doing, refocusing an important discussion to generic whining about "muh feelings", instead of the real issue at hand here: GCC's optimizer is TERRIBLE! Well, evidently you have a completely different understanding of what the "important discussion" here is. I've simply been trying to respond to your emails in a manner I thought appropriate: I didn't think you were sending mails with the expectation that it is apparently unacceptable for me to respond to them, especially when they contain multiple explicit direct questions. > > I for one appreciate this guy's posts, as this issue might have never been called to my attention otherwise; certainly not if this were relegated to the dusty corner of some bug list somewhere. I've now reverted to a much older version of GCC which will hopefully waste much fewer of my old computer's CPU cycles, while also (provably) not constantly breaking my system with all the added warnings and errors every release. I did not think Poe's law would become applicable to so many discussions on this mailing list, but here I am... I guess that leaves me with only one question: are you actually serious in your claim that this "much older version of GCC" will produce faster code than a recent one ? > > Dave