Ramkumar Ramachandra
2013-Jul-17 06:24 UTC
[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)
Joerg Sonnenberger
2013-Jul-17 06:38 UTC
[LLVMdev] [PATCH v2] X86: disambiguate unqualified btr, bts
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
Ramkumar Ramachandra
2013-Jul-17 06:56 UTC
[LLVMdev] [PATCH v2] X86: disambiguate unqualified btr, bts
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.
James Courtier-Dutton
2013-Jul-17 07:54 UTC
[LLVMdev] [PATCH v2] X86: disambiguate unqualified btr, bts
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>
Reasonably Related Threads
- [LLVMdev] [PATCH v2] X86: disambiguate unqualified btr, bts
- [LLVMdev] [PATCH v2] X86: disambiguate unqualified btr, bts
- [LLVMdev] [PATCH v2] X86: disambiguate unqualified btr, bts
- [LLVMdev] [PATCH] x86: disambiguate unqualified btr, bts
- [LLVMdev] [PATCH] x86: disambiguate unqualified btr, bts