llvm dev - Jul 2013 - [LLVMdev] [PATCH v2] X86: disambiguate unqualified btr, bts

Jim Grosbach wrote:
> No. The above rule is absolutely the wrong thing to do, as has been
> previously noted.
I don't give a shit about whether you think it is "absolutely
wrong"
or not; I did what hpa and the Intel manual outlined.  If you have
some _reason_ not to do that, bring it up.

I reported four bugs a few days ago, and the community has shown ZERO
(if not NEGATIVE) interest in fixing them.  I got Linus and hpa to
comment on the issue, and help the community figure out what needs to
be done.  I posted not one, but MULTIPLE patches demonstrating
desirable behavior, despite having ZERO prior experience with compiler
engineering.  Nobody else has posted a single patch, or helped me
write one; instead, they have been sitting around being fabulously
counter-productive, and stalling all progress.

Can you remind me why I'm still trying to help LLVM, and don't just
throw it out the window? (Hint: It's sheer persistence; anyone else
would've given up a long time ago)

Do you value contributors at all? (That's a rhetorical, because I
already know the answer from the way you've been treating me: no)

Do you care about getting LLVM to work with real-world codebases?
(Again a rhetorical, because I already know the answer: no)

On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 11:54:21AM +0530, Ramkumar Ramachandra
wrote:
> Jim Grosbach wrote:
> > No. The above rule is absolutely the wrong thing to do, as has been
> > previously noted.
> 
> I don't give a shit about whether you think it is "absolutely
wrong"
> or not; I did what hpa and the Intel manual outlined.  If you have
> some _reason_ not to do that, bring it up.
In case you have missed this, this is not LKML. Please keep your abusive
language at home. Linus and hpa are no almighty authorities here and
this is not the Linux kernel community.

Joerg

Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
> Linus and hpa are no almighty authorities here and
> this is not the Linux kernel community.
Who said anything about almighty authorities, and who mentioned Linus
or the kernel community now?  Their emails are on the LLVMDev list for
everyone to read: I picked up what made sense to me.

But whatever.

On Jul 17, 2013 7:41 AM, "Joerg Sonnenberger" <joerg at
britannica.bec.de>
wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 11:54:21AM +0530, Ramkumar Ramachandra wrote:
> > Jim Grosbach wrote:
> > > No. The above rule is absolutely the wrong thing to do, as has
been
> > > previously noted.
> >
> > I don't give a shit about whether you think it is "absolutely
wrong"
> > or not; I did what hpa and the Intel manual outlined.  If you have
> > some _reason_ not to do that, bring it up.
>
> In case you have missed this, this is not LKML. Please keep your abusive
> language at home. Linus and hpa are no almighty authorities here and
> this is not the Linux kernel community.
>
Linus is an expert on the x86 instruction set, so his advice on what to do
with bts and btc should be taken seriously. So i thing that although Linus
is not an LLVM authority, he should be considered an x86 authority.

James.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20130717/e08cc207/attachment.html>