llvm dev - Dec 2018 - Where's the optimiser gone? (part 5.a): missed tail calls, and more...

On Tue, Dec 4, 2018 at 3:58 PM Daniel Sanders via llvm-dev <
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> On Dec 4, 2018, at 15:11, Stefan Kanthak <stefan.kanthak at nexgo.de>
wrote:
> No, I understand his intent. I just doesn't align with my intent,
> including the hoops he/LLVM wants me to jump through.
>
> He's not saying they're your bugs, he's just saying they need
> to be reported in the correct place.
>
>
> Go ahead, report them there!
>
>
> I'm afraid I don't have the time to do that. I have my own work to
attend
> to.
>
How uncharitable of you. Mr Kanthak's time is more valuable than anyone
else's.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20181204/b283305a/attachment.html>

Fwiw, getting a bugzilla account is pretty annoying and is a definite
hurdle in getting people to file bug reports.

Even though I don’t work on the optimizer, I would probably file all of
these bugs on behalf of Stefan just because that’s the kind of guy i am,
but then I remember the antagonistic and condescending tone of all the
emails and change my mind.
On Tue, Dec 4, 2018 at 5:16 PM Bruce Hoult via llvm-dev <
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 4, 2018 at 3:58 PM Daniel Sanders via llvm-dev <
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>
>> On Dec 4, 2018, at 15:11, Stefan Kanthak <stefan.kanthak at
nexgo.de> wrote:
>> No, I understand his intent. I just doesn't align with my intent,
>> including the hoops he/LLVM wants me to jump through.
>>
>> He's not saying they're your bugs, he's just saying they
need
>> to be reported in the correct place.
>>
>>
>> Go ahead, report them there!
>>
>>
>> I'm afraid I don't have the time to do that. I have my own work
to attend
>> to.
>>
>
> How uncharitable of you. Mr Kanthak's time is more valuable than anyone
> else's.
>
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20181204/11dee596/attachment.html>

> On Dec 4, 2018, at 17:32, Zachary Turner <zturner at google.com>
wrote:
> 
> Fwiw, getting a bugzilla account is pretty annoying and is a definite
hurdle in getting people to file bug reports.
I completely agree. If bugzilla can't hold back the bot-generated spam
without also being a barrier to occasional reporters then we ought to be looking
at alternatives. Hopefully, that will be the next priority after the repository
migration.

While we're on the subject: It would be neat if godbolt.org could submit
bugs directly to our bug tracker. Especially, if that process could run bugpoint
too. That way, occasional reporters wouldn't need an account at all.
> Even though I don’t work on the optimizer, I would probably file all of
these bugs on behalf of Stefan just because that’s the kind of guy i am, but
then I remember the antagonistic and condescending tone of all the emails and
change my mind.
> On Tue, Dec 4, 2018 at 5:16 PM Bruce Hoult via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at
lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 4, 2018 at 3:58 PM Daniel Sanders via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at
lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote:
>> On Dec 4, 2018, at 15:11, Stefan Kanthak <stefan.kanthak at nexgo.de
<mailto:stefan.kanthak at nexgo.de>> wrote:
>> No, I understand his intent. I just doesn't align with my intent,
>> including the hoops he/LLVM wants me to jump through.
>> 
>>> He's not saying they're your bugs, he's just saying
they need
>>> to be reported in the correct place.
>> 
>> Go ahead, report them there!
> 
> I'm afraid I don't have the time to do that. I have my own work to
attend to.
> 
> How uncharitable of you. Mr Kanthak's time is more valuable than anyone
else's.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
<http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20181204/c72f4c0d/attachment.html>

"Bruce Hoult" <brucehoult at sifive.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 4, 2018 at 3:58 PM Daniel Sanders via llvm-dev <
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>
>> On Dec 4, 2018, at 15:11, Stefan Kanthak <stefan.kanthak at
nexgo.de> wrote:
>> No, I understand his intent. I just doesn't align with my intent,
>> including the hoops he/LLVM wants me to jump through.
>>
>> He's not saying they're your bugs, he's just saying they
need
>> to be reported in the correct place.
>>
>>
>> Go ahead, report them there!
>>
>>
>> I'm afraid I don't have the time to do that. I have my own work
to attend
>> to.
>>
>
> How uncharitable of you.
I second that!
> Mr Kanthak's time is more valuable than anyone else's.
Nice argument.
Did you come up with this brilliant idea completely on your own?

May I but add another, completely bizarre argument to the discussion:
besides Daniel and me, and even you who wastes his surely precious time
with so very constructive comments, there may be one, two or even three
OTHER people, let's call them "users" of LLVM instead of victims,
whose
DEFINITIVELY more valuable time (be it real or CPU) is wasted waiting
for their programs to complete due to the unoptimised code produced by
LLVM, or due to the unoptimised routines shipped with compiler-rt, or
even both, while the web site <https://compiler-rt.llvm.org/> blatantly
lies them in their face stating

| The builtins library provides optimized implementations of this and
| other low-level routines, either in target-independent C form, or as
| a heavily-optimized assembly.

which some of these implementations are clearly NOT!
Now accumulate this time over your user base; don't forget to include
the end users, whose time and resources are wasted running not properly
optimised code generated by or shipped with LLVM.

Speaking of waste: I recommend to dump the executable Windows installer.
It fails here, on properly secured Windows installations, miserably.
And if it would NOT fail, it allows escalation of privilege (CWE-377,
CWE-379, CAPEC-29).

Besides that, I consider dumping several identical files clang*.exe or
*lld*.exe with 40MB size instead of creating hardlinks another waste of
your users resources.

stay tuned
Stefan Kanthak

On Dec 5, 2018, at 3:01 AM, Stefan Kanthak via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at
lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> May I but add another, completely bizarre argument to the discussion:
> besides Daniel and me, and even you who wastes his surely precious time
> with so very constructive comments, there may be one, two or even three
> OTHER people, let's call them "users" of LLVM instead of
victims, whose
> DEFINITIVELY more valuable time (be it real or CPU) is wasted waiting
> for their programs to complete due to the unoptimised code produced by
> LLVM, or due to the unoptimised routines shipped with compiler-rt, or
> even both, while the web site <https://compiler-rt.llvm.org/>
blatantly
> lies them in their face stating
Hi Stefan,

I personally appreciate the fact that you are prodding and probing LLVM, finding
deficiencies, and I think it is great that you are willing to contribute your
insights to the community.  I would personally also really appreciate it if you
would take guidance from the community and log bugs (it isn’t that hard!) so we
can properly track this.  Not doing so is becoming borderline spam on this
mailing list given the volume of posts.  I think your work here is very valuable
and so I’d really like to capture it to allow it to make a lasting impact on
LLVM.

That said, regardless of what your decision on that is (I can understand if it
isn’t worth your time), your tone above is not productive or constructive, and
the LLVM community expects cordial communication with a baseline of a respectful
tone.  I request that you be considerate of the fact that you are speaking on a
public LLVM community list, and therefore are expected to remain in line with
the community expectations.

Thanks.  Please feel free to contact me offline if you have questions or
concerns,

-Chris