This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Don't shoot the messenger
- From: "Eric S. Raymond" <esr at thyrsus dot com>
- To: Steven Bosscher <stevenb dot gcc at gmail dot com>
- Cc: GCC Mailing List <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2014 16:58:25 -0500
- Subject: Re: Don't shoot the messenger
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <20140123212747 dot 6FE32380525 at snark dot thyrsus dot com> <CABu31nNY0tzOSK=ju44ckBVAA0OzzSA6KK60=C2XijS8RnLyfQ at mail dot gmail dot com>
- Reply-to: esr at thyrsus dot com
Steven Bosscher <stevenb.gcc@gmail.com>:
> On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 10:27 PM, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
> > I have not run direct checks on the quality of the optimized code, but
> > reports from others that it is improved seem plausible in light of
> > the fact that GCC's optimization technology is two decades older in
> > origin.
>
> Yay, another "fact".
>
> You must have missed the almost complete rewrite of GCC's optimization
> framework that was merged in 2004 and that's been continuously
> improved since than: http://gcc.gnu.org/projects/tree-ssa/
>
> Really. Do your homework.
>
> Ciao!
> Steven
And another bullet whizzes by my head.
Really, attempts to shoot the messenger *won't help*. By ignoring the
areas where clang *does* have a clear advantage, *right now*, you are
displaying the exact head-in-the-sand attitude that is most likely to
concede the high ground to clang.
That outcome wouldn't be a problem for me. It would hurt the FSF's
prestige pretty badly, though. It's not really my job to care about that,
but I thought someone here would. Perhaps I was wrong.
--
<a href="http://www.catb.org/~esr/">Eric S. Raymond</a>