Re: issue: unexpected results in optimizations

[Jonathan Wakely <jwakely.gcc@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1633 bytes --]

Ignore the troll

On Mon, 11 Dec 2023, 17:28 Dave Blanchard, <dave@killthe.net> wrote:

> Hi Jingwen,
>
> This is the same GCC which in recent versions produces something like two
> dozen extraneous, useless, no-op instructions when doing a simple 64-bit
> math operation on 32-bit systems, and does not use SSE properly either. In
> each major release these problems get worse. The code generator is clearly
> in a state of slow degradation, starting about GCC version 5 or 6--not
> coincidentally the same time when the major version numbers started
> increasingly so rapidly, although it really has been junk since the
> beginning.
>
> Stefan Kanthak hammered this point home numerous times on this list, much
> to the ire of people like Jonathan Wakely who called him a noob, telling
> him to "go file a bug" in a filing cabinet in some obscure corner of a
> disused lavatory so that it can be safely ignored, and so on.
>
> It seems that if correct code generation and optimization is important to
> you (as it should be), GCC is NOT the compiler to be using. I'm all the
> time discovering new and crazy problems with this convoluted pile of junk.
> My recent foray into bootstrapping GNAT (ADA) has opened up yet another can
> of worms. It's broken on GCC 10, and even more broken on GCC 9, and this
> despite 30+ years of development.
>
> Sometimes these days I even blame GCC when it wasn't at fault after all,
> because it's making itself into more and more of a likely suspect as the
> years go by.
>
> I haven't examined the code output of Clang to see how it compares, but
> it's worth serious investigation.
>
> Dave
>