On Sun, 28 May 2023 15:50:41 +0800 Julian Waters via Gcc <gcc@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
> Man, these clang fanboys sure are getting out of hand Strange reasoning you've used here. Is this sort of like how if I'm against Donald Trump, then I must be for Hillary Clinton, or vice versa? That's called a "false dichotomy" FYI. > I feel like all this garbage can be easily resolved by y'all showing this > idiot There's your first mistake. Hint: people who are able to hand deconstruct the output of a compiler's code generator and point out exactly how instructions are wasted are never correctly referred to as an "idiot", in the context of computer programming at least. He's certainly got a few things wrong from time to time in his zeal, but his overall point seems to stand. Do you have any rebuttals of his argument to present yourself? Or do you prefer to just sit back and wait on "y'all" to do the heavy lifting? > the exact proper options required You mean the ones which are unclear and uncertain, because the GCC documentation is inaccurate or simply lies? > and attaching the resulting compiled assembly exactly as he wants it And what if GCC is unable to produce anything like that, because the code generator is at the very least questionable, as his postings seems to prove? > or if gcc doesn't compile the exact assembly he wants, explaining why gcc > chose a different > route than the quote on quote "Perfect assembly" that he expects it to spit > out What version of GCC can we expect to generate efficient and correct code for this brand new, just-released "x86" instruction set? Maybe GCC 97 will finally get it right...which at the current rate of major version number increase, should be some time next year I guess. Or rather more accurately, when will GCC's code generator stop regressing as it seemingly has done for many versions now, and finally Make Compiling Great Again? > And Stefan? Ever heard of the saying that "the loudest man in the room is > always the weakest"? Ever heard the saying "if you can't run with the big dogs, stay under the porch"? Are the GCC developers *trying* to subtly push everyone toward Clang, by slowly degrading GCC over time in hopes that people will eventually give up and leave in frustration? Serious question. Dave
