Re: Will GCC eventually learn to use BSR or even TZCNT on AMD/Intel processors?

[Gabriel Ravier <gabravier@gmail.com>]

On 6/6/23 00:23, Dave Blanchard wrote:
> On Mon, 5 Jun 2023 13:35:22 +0200
> Gabriel Ravier via Gcc <gcc@gcc.gnu.org> 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.

Well, while I don't agree with your opinion on the reasonableness of 
that response (while I'd say it would perhaps be ever so slightly over 
the top as of right now, I don't think it'd be that unreasonable, and 
Stefan's current behavior could easily escalate to a point where one 
could very reasonably want to avoid even a smidge of indirect 
interaction with him), my point is that such a response is a plausible 
one, and given you appear to assume bad faith on the part of the GCC 
developers, I can only assume you agree with me that such a reaction is 
indeed plausible, if for a different reason.

>
>> 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?
I don't think he doesn't care about optimizers. Certainly, looking at 
his website for just a few minutes makes it clear that he very much 
cares a lot about them. But his behavior is so puzzling as to make me 
question how it's possible to argue his case so badly, as to stretch my 
capacity to apply Hanlon's razor: indeed, a technically possible, if 
hopefully wrong conjecture, would be that he does care a lot about the 
optimizer, but simply hates GCC's optimizer so badly (for failing to 
optimize his code exactly how he wants it to be) that he doesn't even 
care about improving it and just wants to shout at the developers 
endlessly over it. This *should* be obviously stupid, but his current 
behavior on this list makes this possibility practically 
indistinguishable to me from one that assumes good faith (and seemingly 
cripplingly bad communication skills) and, as a result, I need to make a 
conscious effort to assume such good faith on his part.
>
>> Someone else might  instead think you're just a troll
> Not you, of course. No sir. You're smarter than that, right?
Well, either I'm spending my time trying to get someone to stop 
completely destroying any potential for them to actually be able to 
contribute to GCC's development, or am I indeed quite the fool and 
completely wasting my time for the enjoyment of someone who doesn't care 
at all. That's all I'm trying to say, I don't think assuming good faith 
magically makes your IQ go up.
>
>> 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
>
Wow, I'm actually impressed by how inflammatory you've managed to make 
this single sentence: it feels like you've managed to bottle up the very 
essence of flaming. Anyway, see above for what I meant by "waste the 
time of people like me", if you didn't understand what I meant by that.