Yeah, I know. I repurposed it. But it's also important to allow poor schlubs stuck in toxic workplaces trying to get something done in spite of their inadequate abilities to manipulate their environment. I was that way at Lockheed, where we used GNAT to demonstrate that the Tartan compiler was doing some funky stuff. Luckily, someone up the hierarchy had serious pull with Tartan. But sometimes you just don't have that power. All I could do was show them how GNAT vs Tartan did it and hope for the best. I was a lowly syseng, but had some ins with softeng [⛧]. So we could have gotten around it. But we didn't have to. This is the 2nd time in as many months I've pulled that story out of my hat. I wish I could remember the details, now. Maybe it's sitting on some 3.5 floppies in some vault somewhere.
[⛧] Softeng stopped making fun of us, calling us bureaucrats, box-and-arrow-guys, etc. after this incident. 8^D On 1/25/21 5:41 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > I don't disagree with that interpretation. > > What I meant at the time was that there is really no group of people that > have a better understanding of optimizing code for, and knowledge of, > microarchitectures than the people that build compilers. People that fancy > themselves experts at tuning application code performance should direct their > attention to doing the Real Work of improving compilers. I don't mean > "leave it to the experts", I mean "Know what you don't know and maybe what > you don't even want to know." -- ↙↙↙ uǝlƃ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
